Lords Sitting of 14 May 1849

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—l a Consular Expenditure Act Amendment.
PETITIONS PRESENTED. By the Bishops of Ripon and London, from a great Number of Parishes in London, and other Places, for the Suppression of Seduction and Prostitution; also from the National Institute of Medicine, in favour of Medical Reform.—By the Earl of Stradbroke, from Places in Cornwall and Essex, and several other Counties, complaining of Agricultural Distress, and for a Repeal of the Malt Tax.—By Lords Brougham and Wharncliffe, from Halifax, Huddersfield, and Ripon, against the Bankrupt Law Consolidation Bill.—By the Duke of Argyll, from Edinburgh, and several other Places in Scotland, for the Enactment of a Law allowing a solemn Affirmation to be substituted in lieu of an Oath.—By the Marquess of Londonderry, from Newtownards, against the Rate in Aid Bill.—By the Earl of Carlisle, from Lancashire, for the Establishment of a general System of Secular Education; also from Bradford and Woolwich, for the Protection and Relief of Clergymen seceding from the Established Church.

PORT PATRICK AND DONAGHADEE.
The MARQUESS of LONDONDERRYrose to ask a question of the noble President of the Council, on which he had been obliged to trouble their Lordships often before, but on which considerable doubt and uncertainty still prevailed. He was informed that Her Majesty's Government were at present about to abandon the
366
packet station in the north of Ireland which was used for the purpose of conveying the mails between Port Patrick and Donaghadee. He showed on former occasions, when this subject had been under discussion, the reports of the different Committees appointed to examine into it, as well as the opinions of the naval officers best acquainted with the facts, had all been in favour of keeping up that station. Moreover, the opinions of the First Lords of the Admiralty during three successive Administrations had been given decidedly in favour of our keeping up those harbours, as the best calculated to convey information in the shortest time between Ireland and Scotland. He did not complain of the arrangements made for the sailing of packets from other quarters; he only complained of the intended abandonment of those harbours. In former years, by granting votes in driblets for their improvement, expectations had been raised that the stations would not be abandoned; but now he was told that they were forthwith to he given up, and the reason was, that it would accelerate the mails if the communication were between Glasgow and Belfast. Now, he had some reason to believe that this change had not been made for such considerations, but for considerations purely political. He had recounted all the circumstances to the First Lord of the Admiralty, and yet he had stopped the improvement in these harbours altogether. He complained that if you went to the authorities at the Post Office on this subject, you were referred to the Admiralty; and if you went to the Admiralty, you were then referred to the Treasury; and that, after all, you got no material information for your pains. Their Lordships were then going to impose a rate in aid upon Ireland for the relief of the destitute. At present a number of poor persons were employed in improving the works of the harbour of Donaghadee; and if the present grant of 10,000 l. were withdrawn, there must be a great increase of destitution in that vicinity. He was therefore of opinion that it would not be a wise economy to stop the communication between Ireland and Scotland which was now carried on by Port Patrick and Donaghadee. It was said that when the railways now in contemplation between Kirkcudbright and Wigton and the Caledonian Railway were completed, you might send letters to Dublin more quickly than by the present route. The noble Marquess read a letter on this

367
subject, and concluded by stating, that if he did not receive a satisfactory answer from the noble Marquess to his question, he should certainly move an address to Her Majesty, praying that She would be graciously pleased to give instructions that the works at Port Patrick and Donaghadee be continued.
The MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEwould do no more on this occasion than give a brief answer to the question of the noble Marquess. The Government had satisfied itself that it would not be authorised in allowing any further expenditure for the harbours of Port Patrick and Donaghadee. Ministers were convinced that the communication between Ireland and Scotland could be carried on more rapidly and conveniently by Belfast and Glasgow than by Port Patrick and Donaghadee.
The MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDEhad no wish to disavow that he had advised the Treasury and the Admiralty to reduce these packet stations. Without saying a word upon the money expended upon them before, he would merely inform the House that there would be a clear saving of 4,000 l. a year to the public, and the communication would be better carried on by a better channel. Any further expenditure on the harbours of Donaghadee and Port Patrick would only be throwing good money away after bad. The public had given a decided proof of what they thought the best means of communication; for the traffic and the passengers conveyed in the packets from Port Patrick to Donaghadee had been diminishing for some years past, whilst both had been increasing in the same time in the packets between Belfast and Glasgow.
The MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRYthought that the decision of the Government on this question had been hastily and incorrectly formed. Did the noble Marquess believe that if the railways were carried on from Port Patrick, the communication between Belfast and Glasgow would be more rapid than it would be in that case between Donaghadee and Glasgow? If the harbour at Port Patrick were not attended to, it would soon be filled up with sand.

FOREIGN INTERVENTION IN ROME.
LORD BEAUMONT, in rising to ask the questions on this subject, of which he had given notice, respecting the interference of Prance, Austria, and Naples, in the affairs of Rome, said, he must throw himself upon
368
the indulgence of the House, and ask a favour which he would not have asked under ordinary circumstances. It was, that their Lordships would keep sufficient silence to hear him; for it would be impossible for him, suffering as he did under severe hoarseness, to make himself intelligible if the conversation which was so often carried on within the walls of the House, were either continued by their Lordships, or were maintained by those in other parts of the building not reckoned within the House. To that appeal to their Lordships' indulgence, he would also add another—that they would allow him to recapitulate, as briefly as possible, before putting the question he was about to ask, all the events which had led to and produced the present strange and alarming state of things in Central Italy, which rendered it absolutely necessary that these questions should be put to, and that some statement in reply should be given by. Her Majesty's Ministers. As far back as the very hour in which the present Supreme Pontiff ascended his throne, circumstances took place which, in the opinion of all men acquainted with the condition of the country, were sure to lead inevitably to the results which they had recently witnessed in the Roman territory. It was known to all who had studied the recent history of Italy, that the misgovernment of the Roman territory, under the pontificate of successive Popes, had brought that country to such a condition that nothing but the strong hand of a stronger power than that of the Papacy, could prevent it from rising in insurrection. That stronger power was Austria, who, al though she had shown by her remonstrance in 1832 little admiration of the system on which the Papal Government was conducted, exerted herself to check the frequent attempts on the part of the people to throw off the yoke of an ecclesiastical thraldom, and thus enabled Rome to persist in its abuses. During the pontificate of Gregory XVI. the prisons were so crowded that they could scarcely admit additional inmates, and the result of all this misgovernment was, that the whole feeling of the country was alienated from the Pontifical Government. The moment the present Pontiff mounted the throne, the question arose in his council whether they should continue to pursue the line of policy followed by his predecessors, or should grant some modification of the system for the purpose of preventing an outbreak. The latter advice was adopted; but the

369
difficulty of carrying out that advice in the Papal States was so great, as well as so different from that which would have attended the carrying it out under any other absolute Power, that the wisest persons in Rome saw, that if the least concession were once made, it would undoubtedly lead to the final separation of the temporal from the spiritual dominion of the Pope. An attempt was, however, made to adopt a more liberal policy, but in a manner of all others the most impracticable. There were to be secular councillors and a sacerdotal Government, a consulta of laymen, but a cabinet of priests. The consequence was inevitable; the priests would not consent to be guided by the laymen, and the laymen demanded to have a voice in the Legislature. The Pope, however, adhered to his original resolution, that no concession should be made which in the slightest degree touched upon his temporal power, and that no change should be attempted which created anything like a lay secular jurisdiction. He made, however, this concession, that a secular council should assemble and debate upon the measures of the Papal Government; but, at the same time, every thing like an initiatory power was taken from them; and any attempt to exercise such an initiatory power was looked upon as a violation of the rules of the spiritual Government, and of the leading principles of the Roman policy. No sooner had this phantom of a constitution been granted to the Roman people, than in all the surrounding States of Italy a revolution took place. In this state of things, the Roman people came forward and claimed the privileges conceded, voluntarily, in some instances to their neighbours, but extorted by force in others from the weakness of their rulers. They asked for the same liberty which had been granted to the Neapolitans; but to such a concession the whole body of the Cardinals was opposed, for they believed that no concession could be made to the people without a concession tantamount to the destruction of the ecclesiastical character of the Government. [The noble Lord was now indistinctly heard. His Lordship was understood to refer to the now constitution granted by the Pope to his subjects in March, 1848, and the formation of a liberal Ministry in May.] His Lordship proceeded to say, that all the circumstances showed that anything deserving the name of a constitution which Pius IX. had granted to the people, was given against his will, and against the ad-
370
vice of the Cardinals, and with a certainty and conviction on his part and theirs that it would lead to the consequences which had happened, and which many of them foresaw; and also with the reservation (he was not speaking of any merely mental reservation), but the apparent, if not avowed intention, that whenever a fitting opportunity occurred, every step which they had taken in advance should be retraced—that the supremacy of the clergy in the Roman State should be maintained in all its original vigour—and that the laity should be deprived of and remain without any of the privileges which had been conceded to them. The hour, however, was not ripe for such a complete retrograde movement. Conformably to the advice which he had received from foreign Courts, the present Pope called to the head of his councils, not the man who deserved his confidence as well as that of the country, by his integrity, his previous services, and his knowledge of the constitutional course recommended by civil liberty well understood, but a man who possessed many high qualities, but who was considered as a foreigner by the Romans, and as a tool of the monarchical party in Prance by the rest of Italy. Nor were his antecedents such as were likely to gain him much influence with the priesthood, for he was one who, on account of his religious and political opinions, had been exiled from Rome—who had been branded as a rebel—who had been excommunicated as a heretic—who had abandoned the Catholic religion, and professed another—who had forsaken his own country, and had become the inhabitant and citizen of another country—and who had been employed as the ambassador of that country to the Court of Rome, which it considered a foreign State. That person, with such qualifications, had been recommended to the Pope as his Minister by a foreign State; but his advice soon appeared to be as unwelcome to the Pope, and as adverse to his views, as it was unwelcome to the Cardinals, and adverse to their views. His first attempt was to retrieve the finances of his country, and he saw no other mode of accomplishing that object than by mortgaging the estates of the Church; and with that view, he was proceeding to enter the Capitol, when he fell by the hands of an assassin, and thus brought unmerited disgrace on those who were opposed to him as Minister. He deplored the death of M. Rossi, and deplored it deeply. It was an event which

371
stood by itself—it was completely isolated; and, though he must admit that some joy was expressed in Rome at this monstrous crime—and he admitted that all who expressed that joy must he considered as participators in that monstrous crime—yet he had evidence sufficient to convince the most incredulous of their Lordships that not one of the men who afterwards succeeded to power evinced any joy at that atrocity; on the contrary, they lamented it deeply, not only for the sake of M. Rossi himself, with whom they were in the habits of intimacy, but also because they saw that it was an event which would delay the success of that cause in which they were embarked. The moment that M. Rossi fell, the Cardinals endeavoured to avail themselves of that opportunity to retrace their steps and to regain the privileges which they had been obliged to abandon; a plan was drawn up and agreed upon which had no other object, but fortunately it was discovered in time. The people rose in indignation. They did not wish to drive the Pope from his throne—they went to the steps of the Vatican, and implored him to stay in Rome, asserting that if he would, they would sacrifice their lives rather than a hair of his head should be injured; but they asked him at the same time to send away the foreign forces on which he relied; they insisted that he should disband the Swiss regiments, and that he should renew the oath to stand by the constitutional form of government which then existed. The Supreme Pontiff declined to do this; for that form of government allowed laymen to take the initiative and to propose measures, and he could not answer for the results that might follow the establishment of such a principle. He therefore refused, rightly, no doubt, in his own conscience. He was then advised by some of the parties by whom he was surrounded to quit Rome. His flight, if he had given notice of his intention, in all probability would not have been prevented. No attempt beyond entreaties would have been made to arrest it. But, instead of ascertaining the wishes of his countrymen, he adopted other advice, and fled from Rome in disguise, which showed a strange want of confidence in his subjects, and strangely inconsistent with his dignity.
LORD BROUGHAM: Had the assassins of Rossi been arrested at that time?
LORD BEAUMONThad heard the observation of his noble and learned Friend.
372
Though generally he respected what fell from the noble and learned Lord, he regretted to tell him that on this subject, as indeed on many others, it was impossible for any man to fathom his ignorance. His assertions, one after another, were inconsistent with themselves, and contrary to fact; and it would not be long before he heard from those whom he had slandered, that his assertions were falsehoods, and before he would be called upon to contradict or retract them. ["Order, order!"]
LORD BROUGHAM: I have allowed the noble Baron to go on without interruption in one of the most irregular speeches which I ever heard delivered in this House.
The EARL of WICKLOW: There is no irregularity.
LORD BROUGHAM: No irregularity?
The EARL of WICKLOW: Not in his speech.
LORD BROUGHAM: There is irregugularity, and the gross irregularity is this—the noble Baron puts a question, and prefaces it by a long speech, which is perfectly irregular.
The EARL of WICKLOW: It is done every day.
LORD BROUGHAM: The only office of a speech is to introduce a question, and to make it intelligible to the Government, which has to answer it. But to make a long speech, and to refer to former debates, and to say that any noble Lord's assertions are falsehoods, is a course so irregular that I never saw it taken in this House before; and I receive the statement just made, from whomsoever it comes, with the most absolute contempt.
LORD BEAUMONT: I am now doing what the noble and learned Lord admits that I am strictly entitled to do. I am making a statement to render my question intelligible; and if my speech be longer than it otherwise would have been, it arises from erroneous statements of the noble and learned Lord.
LORD BROUGHAM: My Lords, I ask whether it is either regular or orderly, even according to the laxest rule of order, for any noble Lord, on the information of an Italian, I know not whom, to accuse another Peer of Parliament of having delivered falsehoods to the House. I will pin the noble Lord to that expression of falsehood. He may either explain it, or retract it, or apologise for it; not, indeed, to me, because I despise it, but to the House, whose orders he has violated.
LORD BEAUMONT: Certainly, I did use the word "falsehoods," but I never meant to insinuate, and I never thought, that they were falsehoods of the noble and learned Lord. The noble and learned Lord's informants had induced him to believe slanders against the leading men of Rome, which were totally devoid of truth. Whatever be the violence of his language, I have too much respect for the noble and learned Lord, even in moments like these, to assert that he would state anything like falsehood wilfully, knowing it to be so. "Falsehood" was too strong an expression to use. But, if I had used a milder form of words, it would only have meant the same thing. I might have said that, in making such an assertion, the noble and learned Lord was misinformed, but, after all, my meaning would have been the same. I think that the word "falsehood" ought not to have been used, and if it did escape my lips I willingly apologise to the noble and learned Lord, if he imagines for a moment that I applied it any way to him. What I meant to say was this, "that many statements had gone forth on these subjects not in accordance with truth," and that the noble and learned Lord had, for want of better information, adopted these statements. I was going, before I was interrupted, to say that the Government of the Pope took no steps to arrest the assassin of M. Rossi, but that the first step taken by Mamiani, who succeeded to his power, was to endeavour to arrest the assassin, and to bring him to trial before the ordinary tribunals. Immediately afterwards every attempt was made by the Provisional Government to establish a reconciliation between the Sovereign Pontiff and his people, and to prevent the interference of foreign Powers in the affairs of Rome. Those attempts were met by the Pope in the harshest manner imaginable; and in the Court of Gaeta intrigues were carried on by the Cardinals to insure that which all sensible men deprecated—foreign interference. He had understood that a scheme had been devised by Austria whereby Spain and Naples were alone to interfere, while Austria and France stood by and merely looked on. Each Power in this interference was looking to its own interest, and its own interest alone, and whilst they were undecided the Roman Republic was proclaimed. It was proclaimed by the universal suffrage of the people, and thus the wishes, intentions, and voice of the
374
people were distinctly made known. Though it might be doubtful whether the number of real republicans was very great at Rome, yet there was no doubt that the number of persons was very large who wished the secular power to be taken out of the hands of the clergy, and to have a lay Government established. Whilst things were in this situation, whilst the whole country was in profound tranquillity, whilst all the provinces within the Roman territory were anxiously expecting that peace and reform should take place, at that moment the French suddenly sent an expedition from Toulon, landed at Civita Vecchia, and there issued a proclamation which completely deceived the Roman people, and led them to consent to the unresisted occupation of that port. In their first proclamation they said that they came not to impose any form of government, but merely to resist the interference of Austria. As this was in accordance with one of the ruling principles of the constitution established in France, of course, the Roman people believed it; and thus they received the French as friends rather than as enemies. But, on the advance of the French to the city of Rome, they issued a proclamation of a very different character. A spirit of resistance sprang up and speedily organised itself. Notwithstanding that there was a strong party at Rome, which would have supported the Pope as a constitutional Prince, yet, as soon as it was known that the French came to restore the Papal power in full ecclesiastical ascendancy, all Rome was against them. He said that it was impossible to restore the pure Papal Government at Rome without destroying liberty, and establishing a pure absolutism in its stead. In making that statement he was speaking the sentiments of millions of Roman Catholics, who held that the temporal and spiritual power of the Pope ought to be separated, and that the Government of Rome should not be conducted entirely by the priesthood. Having made some further allusion to the two proclamations issued by the French general, the noble Lord said he would now ask his noble Friend the President of the Council, whether any communication had been made to our Government by that of France of its objects and intentions in occupying the Roman States, for he could not for his life discover what those objects and intentions were? What their object was, whether it was the general good of Europe, as connected with the preservation

375
of general peace, or the natural ambition of that great State to play the leading part in the restoration of the Pope, or the consequence of an agreement with the other Catholic Powers of Europe, he could not tell. His next question would relate to the proceedings of Austria. He did not know that Austria had yet violated the Roman territory. He knew that she had entered the States of Tuscany; but in that case there were certain arrangements which gave Austria the right in certain contingencies to interfere in the affairs of Tuscany. He did not know, he repeated, whether Austria had yet violated the Roman territory; but she was the last Power from which, after all her recent protestations against interference, he could have expected any interference in a struggle between a foreign sovereign and his people. Another Power also had interfered, the King of Naples—he who had over and over again protested against any interference between him and his sacrificed subjects in Sicily. Whatever might be his motives, he had unquestionably violated the privileges of an independent State, and by marching against Rome had committed a grave offence against the law of nations. Therefore it was that he wanted to know whether any communication had been received by our Government from the King of Naples as to his object in joining in this expedition? And, further, he wanted to know whether our Government had taken any measure in concert with foreign Governments on this subject; or whether it preserved a strict neutrality throughout the whole proceeding? Again, whether it had demanded information, or whether it remained ignorant—whether it had protested against, or whether it had approved of, what had taken place?
The MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNEsaid, he had been extremely unwilling to interrupt the resumé of past events with which his noble Friend had prefaced his questions, and which, in his opinion, were necessary to render them intelligible—the only view in which his remarks could be considered regular. But, after what had fallen from his noble Friend that evening, he must say that this was not a fit time, nor the present a suitable occasion, to enter into a retrospect of the events which had recently occurred in Rome—events which had agitated, more or less, the public mind in that country, and which were connected with the deplorable tragedy which had been perpetrated in the Capitol. He
376
would not enter upon such a discussion, as it was not necessary at present for their Lordships to come to any decision upon them. He should therefore neither confirm nor impugn the accuracy of the statements of his noble Friend. But as to his questions, which were perfectly legitimate questions, he would endeavour to give a short and distinct answer. His noble Friend had asked whether Her Majesty's Government had received any communication from the French Government as to its intentions in occupying portions of the Roman territory. To that he answered that an intimation to that effect had been communicated to Her Majesty's Government on the 21st of April last. Through the medium of the French Ambassador, an intimation was conveyed to our Government that it intended to send a French force to Civita Vecchia, and it was accompanied by a declaratien, which there was no reason to doubt at the time, that the object of France in sending that force was to promote the general peace of Italy, and the re-establishment of a constitutional and regular Government at Rome. That communication had been made to our Government, and no disapprobation had been expressed of it, because there was, in his opinion, no reason to disapprove of it. The expedition was not suggested by the English Government, nor was any concurrence in it communicated to the French Government. That communication, he ought to state, was limited to the occupation of Civita Vecchia by a French force. Nothing was said about the march to Rome; and he was led to believe that it was a suggestion of the commander of the French forces, and did not proceed from any instruction which he had in the first instance received from his Government at Paris. That was the answer to the first question of his noble Friend. With regard to the questions respecting the assumed invasion of the Roman territory by Austria and Naples—for he was not aware of any actual invasion made by the forces of those Powers—he had to state that no communication whatever had been made on the subject to Her Majesty's Government by the Governments of Austria and Naples. Of course their Lordships might anticipate, after what he had already stated, what answer he had to give to the last question of the noble Lord, as to whether Her Majesty's Government had taken any part in promoting this tripartite invasion; and he had distinctly to answer that Her

377
Majesty's Government had taken no part in promoting or in sanctioning it. In reference to a question put by the noble and learned Lord opposite on a former occasion, with respect to the disposal of objects of art in Rome, for the purpose of promoting the service of the existing Government there, something had been misunderstood in his reply: he would take the opportunity of repeating what he then stated, which was to the effect, that he had no information whatever of objects of art being so disposed of; that he thought it improbable that larger works could be removed without the fact being well known; and, with respect to the smaller works of art, he was not aware that any had been removed, yet it was more probable that some of them might have been taken away without the fact being known.
The EARL of ABERDEENthought that, considering the interest and importance of the events which had been brought under their Lordships' notice, their Lordships had a right to expect a rather more distinct and precise statement than the noble Marquess opposite had favoured them with. The noble Marquess said, that a communication had been made by the French Government, and that they had intimated that the object of the expedition to Civita Vecchia was to preserve the peace of Italy, and to effect other general objects of beneficence. But surely the noble Marquess, before he could have approved of a step which brought 20,000 French troops into the centre of Italy, must have received some more explicit explanation than such a vague and general intimation as he had that evening communicated to their Lordships. He had no wish to criticise hostilely the conduct of the French Government; but in looking at the explanation which had been given of this proceeding, and referring to other means of information proceeding from official quarters, which conveyed explanations which it appeared were not given to Her Majesty's Government, he found the Prime Minister of France saying that the object of this expedition was to maintain the legitimate influence of France in Italy, and to contribute to establish good government for the Roman people. Surely objects such as these would require the presence of a French force in Italy for ten years just as probably as for a single year. How were they to know when the "legitimate" influence of France would be satisfied, or when a Government would be formed in Italy which
378
in the opinion of the French nation would be considered a good Government? Then he found that the French general in command stated in his order of the day, that the object of the expedition was to establish good government, and also to prevent the Romans from being subject to a foreign force. Why, one would have thought that a French force was as foreign in Italy as an Austrian force; indeed, rather more so, as the connexion between Austria and Rome, as Italian States, had been more intimate of late than that between France and Rome. If this were so, surely an expedition of this kind could not be a matter of indifference to Her Majesty's Government or to their Lordships; and when the noble Marquess said that the Government neither approved nor disapproved of it, something more decided might have been expected than such a negative expression. With reference to a question of such vast importance, and likely to have such important effects, it was the duty of the Government either to protest against it, or to sanction it by direct approbation, if they thought the object of the expedition useful. Looking at the public declarations of French official characters, the best thing to be hoped was that they did not speak truth, because, otherwise, if those declarations must be accepted as correct, the matter would be very serious indeed. It was generally understood, that some time ago the Papal Government at Gaeta addressed the four principal Catholic Powers, imploring their assistance with the view of restoring the Pope to his dominions. How far that negotiation had advanced, and what had been the result, he, of course, was uninformed; but it was understood that some conference had taken place between the representatives of those Powers. Had the French, then, gone into the Papal dominions at the desire of the Pope or not? If they had gone at the Pope's desire, then they went there for the same reasons and on the same grounds as those which, it was said, were influencing the Austrians and the Neapolitans to go there. If the French expedition were, however, a hostile invasion, such a proceeding must excite great alarm for the consequences. But, notwithstanding the declarations of the French Minister, he assumed that the expedition was undertaken with a view more or less friendly to the Papal Government; and, supposing Austria also to respond to the desire of the Pope, then they would see the Austrians marching to Rome at the time

379
when the French were advancing to that city from Civita Vecchia, and declaring that their object was to prevent foreign troops going to Rome. Such an occurrence would put one in mind of the declaration of the bastard Faulconbridge in King John, when Austria and France advanced to the siege of Angers:—
"O, prudent discipline! from north to south
Austri and France shoot in each other's mouth."
It really was a most extraordinary affair that the end of all the mischievous interference on the part of Her Majesty's Government—of all their negotiations and extraordinary missions, should be to bring 20,000 French troops—for to that number, he understood, they were augmented—into the centre of Italy. The Government sent out the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Minto) to counteract foreign influence at Rome, when exercised through the French Ambassador, Count Rossi, the same person who was shortly afterwards butchered on the steps of the Capitol, when endeavouring to serve his country by the establishment of a patriotic Ministry. However, the noble Earl perfectly succeeded; but, in doing so, he had done much, in his (Lord Aberdeen's) opinion, to destroy the liberties of Italy. Whatever had been the conduct of the noble Earl himself, it was quite impossible for such a mission, at such a time, and taking into consideration the persons by whom the noble Earl was surrounded, not to have produced inevitably the result which followed—namely, that every person who went to the noble Earl with acclamations and rejoicing, retired from his presence perfectly convinced that he was prepared to join in driving the Austrians out of Italy, and in establishing those wild notions the entire failure of which had since been witnessed. Therefore, he thought that the noble Earl's mission had practically been more fatal than anything else could have been to the real freedom of Italy. With respect to the answer given by the noble Marquess to the question put to him, he thought that nothing could be more unsatisfactory than a mere declaration that the French Government had some good object in view, without explanation as to what that object was—whether to restore the Pope, or confirm Mazzini in power. Upon that point their Lordships had been left in perfect doubt; and, considering the immense importance of the consequences which might arise out of the French expedition, he thought it was incumbent on the Government to have much
380
more clear and explicit declarations, and to know more precisely what the real object of the expedition was.
EARL MINTOsaid, he was not going to enter into a general vindication of his own conduct, or to follow the noble Earl who had just sat down through the whole of his remarks; but the noble Earl had made one implication which it was necessary for him to deny, namely, that it was impossible from the nature of his (the Earl of Minto's) mission there, or the language which held, that any person could doubt that he was preparing to encourage, on the part of Her Majesty's Government, the expulsion of the Austrians from Italy. He denied that anything of that kind could be collected from anything that he had said or done. On the contrary, he had omitted no opportunity of stating that desirous as the Government were of seeing a wholesome reform in Italy, there was one point on which their opinion and determination remained fixed—that they would be no party to, and would not encourage, tolerate, or approve any change of the territorial arrangements settled by the Treaty of Vienna. And upon the occasion of Charles Albert's invasion of Lombardy, there was no person in that House who spoke more strongly, or condemned more distinctly that proceeding, than did he (the Earl of Minto). He had risen merely to correct the misapprehension which the noble Earl had fallen into. There were, certainly, dangers in Italy when he was there; those dangers he was anxious to avert, as far as he could; but nothing had ever fallen from him which could be construed by the most eager advocates of Italian unity, or any of that nonsense, into a sanction of any attempt whatever to expel the Austrians from Italy.
LORD BROUGHAMsaid, he could bear testimony to the conduct of the noble Earl in that House upon the occasion referred to; but as to what had passed in Italy, he could say nothing. He must observe, that if the mission of his noble Friend opposite (the Earl of Minto) was to keep Italy free from French intervention, he could not congratulate him upon his success on the result, as, by this time, he supposed 25,000 French troops were in the centre of Italy, in the Roman capital itself. He well recollected how much the Government of which he was a Member were blamed for permitting the occupation of Ancona by the French; but they were probably now in the occupation of Rome, which was a somewhat more

381
grave matter. The subject was so important that he could not allow himself to be drawn into any incidental discussion of it. It was very natural for his noble Friend to discuss it; but he begged to be understood as not expressing any opinion whatever upon the subject of the French invasion of Italy. He must, however, express his surprise that the noble Marquess opposite and his Colleagues should be satisfied with such meagre information as the French Ambassador here appeared to have given. If the Government did not expect the French to march to Rome, how could they expect that the mere landing of a French force at Civita Vecchia could possibly alter the state of Italy, and give a wholesome government to the Roman people? Still his opinion was, that if anybody were to ask the French Government what their intentions were on the subject, his noble Friend opposite could tell just as well as they could. His noble Friend could not tell, and the French Government would not tell. He believed, however, that he (Lord Brougham) knew what the real motive was, for he was in Paris at the time, and men of all parties approved of the project. They approved of an expedition. They wanted an expedition for the purpose of acquiring some military glory—they did not care how little, but some they must have. Algiers would not serve their turn any longer, and they wanted an expedition into some part of Europe for the purpose of gratifying the craving after military glory, not of the French people, but of the Paris mob. He hoped that the matter would be gravely considered by Her Majesty's Government, for the principles which had been propounded would in former times have made statesmen stand aghast. Her Majesty's Ministers must have asked for further information from the French Government, and he hoped they would obtain it. With regard to another subject, he begged to say that he had not understood the noble Marquess to say, upon the occasion referred to, that the smaller works of art were taken away, but only that the difficulty of carrying away the bulkier works of art would make their sale more difficult than that of the smaller articles. Since he had first called the attention of the noble Marquess to the subject, he had received a letter from Mr. Manzoni, who was no longer in Rome, but in London, complaining of the observations which he (Lord Brougham) had made; and
382
Mr. Manzoni said, that it was hard that he (Lord Brougham) should believe what he had been told upon the subject, because there had been a contradiction to the statement in the paragraph of a newspaper. Now, he did not believe a statement merely because he saw it in a paragraph of a newspaper, nor did he disbelieve it on account of a contradiction in a paragraph. However, he (Lord Brougham) said, that he was very sorry if he had been misled; but that if Mr. Manzoni would present a petition, positively denying his having brought away from Rome any of the smaller or more precious works of art, he should have great pleasure in reading it to their Lordships. He then thought it but candid to tell Mr. Manzoni that the knowledge of the proceedings of the soi-disant Government of Rome did not rest on letters or paragraphs, but on facts that were perfectly well known to all of their Lordships. This correspondence took place a week ago; and not having received any communication from Mr. Manzoni since, he of course had no petition to present from him. If he thought proper to make a public declaration that he had not brought any of these works of art from Rome, of course it would tend very much to impede the operations of the market.
The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNEsaid a few words in explanation.
The MARQUESS of LONDONDERRYsaid, his opinion was that the French Government, and the individual who was at the head of it, were very anxious to preserve peace; and he thought that great allowance should be made for them in their present difficult circumstances. He regretted that this question had been brought forward by the noble Lord (Lord Beaumont), as it was, in his opinion, very impolitic to discuss this subject at so early a stage. He thought that this discussion had been very premature and very indiscreet. All of us in this country had of course our partiality for monarchy; but the people of France had a right to choose what sort of Government they pleased; that Government at present was of a republican form, and he would ask their Lordships whether they ought not to endeavour to assist, if possible, in keeping France quiet under the republic? He thought that the individual at the head of the present Government of France had displayed great firmness and sagacity in the performance of his difficult task; and it was only fair that he should be allowed

383
sufficient time for the accomplishment of his objects. They ought not to press the French Government to a decision at a moment when he (the Marquess of Londonderry) believed that it was impossible for that body to come to any resolution upon these important questions. The position of the individual at the head of the French Government appeared to him to be most difficult and extraordinary; and yet it was universally admitted that up to the present moment he had not committed a single fault. It was not true, as had been so generally asserted in this country, that the army in Paris was demoralised; the fact being that not more than 300 or 400 of the soldiers were allied with Socialism. He was glad to hear that, during the recent holidays, the noble and learned Lord (Lord Brougham) had taken the opportunity, in company with many of his fellow-countrymen, of fraternising with the people of France.
LORD BROUGHAMcould offer the most peremptory contradiction to the assertion that he had accompanied any set of men to Paris on a recent occasion. There was not the slightest particle of truth in the assertion. He did go to Paris during the holidays, but he did not accompany any one of the individuals who went to fraternise with the French; in fact, he went by a different steamer from that which conveyed the visitors from this country. He had had nothing whatever to do with that most absurd delusion in which they took part at Paris. He entertained a very strong and decided opinion against such visits; he deprecated them as fatal to the peace of the country. By the constitutions of England and of France, no communication whatever was allowed to be held between the two countries, except through the two Governments. That was a rule which must be kept inviolate; because, if the expedition of those people who went to Paris to amuse themselves, were to be taken as a national expedition and a national deputation, though in the first or in the second instance no harm might result—as was fortunately the case in the last instance, owing to the good humour of the people of Paris, and the people who went there as a deputation from this country, but who were in fact no deputation at all, for they were deputed by nobody—yet upon some future occasion great harm might take place. A collision might take place between the people of Paris and the visitors, if they went there in large bodies,
384
and such a collision might lead to bad blood between the two countries, and in the end the results might be of the most mischievous character. It was therefore well that the rule and the constitution of England, as it was of France, was that the only communication which could take place between the two countries must be on the part, not of individuals, not of deputations, not of bodies, but of the Governments of the two countries.

POOR LAWS (IRELAND)—RATE IN AID BILL.
Order of the Day for the House being put in Committee read.
The DUKE of WELLINGTONsaid, he wished to ask the noble Marquess opposite whether any progress had been made in relation to the Bill for altering the size of electoral divisions in Ireland; as it appeared to him that if that measure were brought forward it would facilitate the operation of the Rate in Aid Bill?
The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNEreplied that no Bill had as yet been brought into Parliament upon the subject to which the noble Duke referred; the reason being that, though the subject had been for some time in the contemplation of the Government, neither the Committee of that nor the other House of Parliament, to whom the question had been referred, had yet delivered any report. The Poor Law Commissioners had, however, at present the power of making such arrangements as might be necessary. He apprehended and hoped that a Bill would soon be introduced on the subject.
The EARL of MOUNTCASHELobserved, that the agitation in the north of Ireland with reference to this Bill was so great, that he thought the Government ought not to press the measure without due consideration. He feared that, if they went on in their present course, they might drive the people of that part of Ireland, who had hitherto been remarkable for their loyalty, almost to a state of rebellion.
The EARL of CARLISLEsaid, that it had been understood that no discussion would take place on this stage of the Bill, and many Peers had left the House under that impression. The noble Earl would have an opportunity of making any observations he might wish to offer to the House on the third reading.
The EARL of MOUNTCASHELsaid, that upon the grounds he had touched upon

385
he was about to propose that it would be desirable to postpone going into Committee until some future day.
The EARL of MINTOsaid, that there had been an understanding on the part of their Lordships that the discussion upon this measure should take place upon a future stage, and that no resistance would be made to it upon its present stage. The noble Lord was of course at liberty to adopt any course he thought proper; but it was desirable that arrangements of this nature, when made, should be adhered to.
LORD MONTEAGLEsaid, that though he decidedly disapproved of the Bill, he deprecated getting up any unexpected discussion at the present stage of the measure, and thought that doing so in the absence of so many noble Lords, would only defeat the object which the noble Earl himself had in view.
The EARL of MOUNTCASHELsaid, that he was totally unaware of the existence of any such agreement as that referred to, and of course should not, under those circumstances, press the Motion which he had intended to make.
House in Committee.
The 1st Clause having been read.
The EARL of WICKLOWsaid, that much as he objected to the principle of the Bill, he still objected even more to the mode by which it was proposed to carry out the measure. Supposing the rate in aid were a legitimate and proper thing, the proposed mode of levying it was an exceedingly unjust one. The mixing up of the rate in aid with the general rating of the country, would have the effect of impeding the operation of the poor-law in every part of the country. With a view of correcting this evil, he would take the liberty of proposing that the Bill should be so amended as that the rate in aid should be collected as an entirely separate and exclusive rate. He should follow that up with a Motion to levy the rate in aid solely upon the landed proprietors, or make such provision in the measure that the tenant who would have to pay it, should have the power of deducting the whole of it from his rent. If such a provision as that were made, although it would not alter the injustice or impolicy of the measure, still it would prevent much of the difficulty and distress that would arise from it. He should also wish to see the rate in aid made a separate rate altogether, as it would then give the landed gentry of the country the power of taking
386
it entirely upon themselves, in such cases as they might think it right to do so, in order to relieve their tenantry from the unjust burden cast upon them by this measure.
The EARL of MOUNTCASHELopposed the Amendment, on the ground that it appeared, from the evidence which had been given before a Committee of their Lordships, that the landlords had already been compelled to pay a far greater share of the poor-rates than they ought to have paid. In cases where the tenants did not pay more than 4l. per annum rent, the whole of the rates had to be borne by the landlord. In very many cases the landlord received no rent at all, and yet he was compelled to pay the poor-rates. That was a hard case enough; but if to this were to be added the whole amount of the rate in aid, it would make the case much worse.
The EARL of CARLISLEregretted that he could not accede to the proposed alteration of the noble Lord, who, upon all subjects connected with Ireland, spoke with such weight. The suggestion which he had now made was one prompted by no selfish motive, but quite the reverse. There was, however, a constitutional objection to the whole plan, which prevented him from acceding to the Motion, and dispensed at once with the necessity of further discussing it.
Amendment withdrawn.
LORD MONTEAGLEsaid, that under this Bill a certain sum was to be raised by a rate in aid, which was to be distributed by the Poor Law Commissioners according to their discretion. It would perhaps be inconsistent with the principle of the Bill that it should be dispensed in any other way than that proposed by the Bill; but, at the same time, he thought some provision might be introduced for the purpose of securing an effectual control over the disposal of the money. He would, therefore, propose that a distinct account should be kept of the amount received under the rate in aid, and the mode of its disbursement, and that accounts of the same up to the 31st of December of each of the years during which the Act should continue in operation should be laid before Parliament within ten days after its assembling.
The EARL of CARLISLEsaid, with the reservation that such a provision should not be found incompatible with Parliamentary forms, he saw no objection to the provision.
After a short discussion the Amendment

387
was agreed to, as were other amendments and the several clauses of the Bill.
The EARL of CARLISLEmoved that the Bill should be reported to-morrow. It was understood that no discussion would be taken upon the measure in that stage, and he would propose that the third reading should be fixed for Friday, when it was understood the discussion would take place.
The EARL of MOUNTCASHELsaid, he came down to the House totally unacquainted with the fact of any understanding having been made; he was told, however, that one had been made, and that he must not therefore say a word in opposition. Now, upon the next stage, he was told that an understanding had again been made. All this time the Government, however, were progressing with the measure, and now it was understood that the discussion was only to come on upon its final stage. He protested against this mode of carrying through a measure, which, like all the recent Irish measures, would only place Ireland in a worse position than she was in before.
Report to be received To-morrow.
House adjourned till To-morrow.