Lords Sitting of 27 March 1851

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILL.—3a Commons Inclosure.

POLITICAL REFUGEES IN ENGLAND.
LORD LYNDHURSTsaid: My Lords, I beg to call the attention of Her Majesty's
622
Government to a subject of considerable importance—a subject which respects the tranquillity of this country, and, at the same time, the permanence of that good understanding between ourselves and foreign Towers with whom we are at present in friendly alliance—I allude to the reprehensible conduct of certain foreigners in this country, who are now living here under the protection of our laws. It has always been the principle and the practice amongst us to afford a ready asylum to persons driven from their own country in consequence of their religious or political opinions or conduct. My Lords, I do not wish, in the slightest degree, to trench upon this principle; it appears to me to be in perfect accordance with the character of an enlightened, a generous, and a powerful country. But, my Lords, it must always be remembered that this protection imposes upon the persons who take advantage of it a corresponding duty of a grave character: that duty is to live amongst us peaceably and quietly, and not to make this country the focus of intrigues against foreign States; above all, not to carry on any proceedings of a hostile character directed against countries with which we are connected by treaties of friendship and alliance. These are principles so clear, so just, so universally recognised, that it is unnecessary for me to dilate upon them, and I refer to them merely as introductory to the statement to which I am about to call the attention of Her Majesty's Government. My Lords, there is within this city an association of persons who style themselves the Central National Italian Committee. These persons, as I understand, and as they themselves state, were elected to that office after the expulsion of the insurrectionists from Rome by the Constituent Assembly, or by some members of the Constituent Assembly of the Republic of Rome, and by other persons holding offices during the Italian revolution. The object of this association is, as they themselves profess, to keep up the spirit of insurrection in Italy, with a view ultimately to the establishment of a central republic in that country. My Lords, these, persons have lately opened a loan in this country, publicly advertised, composed of shares of small amount, some of which I have had in my possession, professedly for the purpose of carrying their political designs into execution. These shares are; accompanied with a circular, stating that the object of this loan is to purchase arms

623
and munitions of war for the promotion and accomplishment of their insurrectionary designs in Italy; and they pledge themselves in the strongest terms that the funds thus raised shall he applied to this purpose, and to this purpose alone. My Lords, these shares are signed by Mazzini, one of the ex-Triumvirs of Rome; by another person of the name of Saffi, also one of the ex-Triumvirs; and by another person whose name I do not at this moment recollect. They are endorsed in the name of Agostini, who styles himself the Secretary of this Committee. Now, it is quite obvious, my Lords, that this is a breach of the implied engagement which those persons entered into when they came to this country to seek the protection of our laws; and I am sure your Lordships will join with me in reprehending such conduct in the strongest possible terms. My Lords, I am not so weak as to suppose, for one moment, that much money will he raised in this country by a body of this description. People are much more ready to throw up their caps and shout in favour of liberty, equality, and fraternity, than to lay down their money for such objects. But, unless I am greatly misinformed, a very considerable amount of money has been raised by the transmission of these shares to Paris; and the further circulation of them has only been prevented by the active interposition of the French police. They have also been sent to Italy, where they are openly sold in the stock market of Genoa. This is the subject, then, to which I am anxious to call the attention of Her Majesty's Government. The fact that this loan has been publicly advertised in this country, and that these proceedings are being carried on under the eyes of the Government, must have these effects—first of all, to lead the revolutionists of Italy to the conclusion that the Government must be favourable to their designs, and at the same time have the effect of alienating from us the goodwill and friendship of our allies, and to lead them to view our proceedings and the conduct of our Government with suspicion and distrust. Now, these are results which Her Majesty's Government, and every reasonable and thinking man in this country, must sincerely deplore. But it is not to this measure alone that I am about to call your Lordships' attention. There are other measures of a similar character which I think it necessary, and my duty,
624
to mention. In addition to the society to which I have referred, there is in this city another society which syles itself the Central Democratic European Committee. Now, this Committee or association has been formed for the avowed purpose—not directed against one or two States—but for the avowed purpose of encouraging insurrectionary projects in every part of Europe. They declare it to be their object to keep this spirit and temper alive until they have the opportunity, by a simultaneous movement, of carrying their ultimate projects into effect. My Lords, this society has lately issued a proclamation addressed to their partisans throughout Europe, with the view of accomplishing the object to which I have referred—to accomplish, if possible, a simultaneous insurrection in every part of Europe. In this proclamation they praise in the highest degree the energy and the zeal of the insurgents of Vienna and Milan, upon whom they call to hold themselves in readiness for another rising of a similar description, assuring them that by co-operation and simultaneous efforts of all the democratic party in Europe, their objects must ultimately be attained. Now, who are the parties to this proclamation? They are, as they call themselves, representatives of different European States. One is Mazzini, who represents Italy; another person, whose name I do not at this moment call to mind, but whe styles himself a late member of the Constituent Assembly at Frankfort, represents Germany; a well-known Pole represents the kingdom of Poland; and the Republic of France is represented by a person who is still better known, namely, Ledru Rollin—a person who, flying from France, took refuge in this country, and who, to evince his gratitude for the protection thus afforded him, soon afterwards published a series of atrocious libels against the people and Government of this country, the malignant character of which was equalled only by their extravagance and absurdity. Such is the Central Committee to which I have referred, carrying on their proceedings in this country under the eye of the Government; abusing the protection which our law affords them, and running directly counter to that implied engagement into which every refugee enters when he solicits protection and an asylum in a foreign State. But this is not all. I have a case still more striking, to which I entreat the attention

625
of Her Majesty's Government, There is another Central Committee in this city—where the branches meet I know not—to whose proceedings I wish also particularly to call your Lordships' attention. It is a Committee who style themselves the Central Committee of Hungarian Refugees. One of the leading members of this Committee is General Klapka, an officer who served in the insurrectionary war in Hungary, and who commanded the insurgents at Comoro at the close of the Hungarian war. It is well known that a large body of Hungarians were sent from Austria into Italy, and were there incorporated with the Austrian army in Lombardy. Availing themselves of this fact, this Committee lately prepared a proclamation addressed to those Hungarians, in language of the most inflammatory character, containing topics also of the most exciting description, calling upon them to desert from their ranks, and pointing out how this might be effected in a manner the most effectively destructive of Austria. They were told how to act in the event of a war breaking out, what signals are to be made, and what co-operation they would receive. This proclamation is signed on the part of the Committee by the individual to whom I have referred (M. Klapka), and a more flagrant violation of the principles upon which protection has been afforded to a refugee can scarcely be imagined. My Lords, I pass over the language which was held at a recent meeting composed of foreigners, and which was insulting alike to the Government of Austria and to the House of Austria, and the members of it both male and female. I refer to a meeting which was presided over by a person of the name of Haug, a man well known in the barricades of Vienna, who afterwards fled to Rome, and was there made a general by the revolutionary Government. I pass this over, although very reprehensible, because it appears to me to be far inferior in weight and importance to those distinct and hostile conspiracies to which I have adverted. I am sure Her Majesty's Government must be most anxious to put an end to those unwarrantable proceedings. They are injurious to the character of the country, and if allowed to go on for any length of time, I cannot be sure that we may not be held responsible for having kept these persons under our shelter and protection. What remonstrances these proceedings may have occasioned on the
626
part of the Austrian Government, or how far those remonstrances may have been seconded and supported by the representatives of other European Powers, must of course be much better known to Her Majesty's Government than to myself. The question I have to consider is, what is the remedy, and how are we put an end to those dangerous proceedings? Are we to institute a public prosecution? Upon that I express no opinion. A prosecution of this kind would be difficult to conduct. At all events it would be slow in its progress, and, perhaps, uncertain in its results. But there is a remedy, short, efficacious, and adapted to the purpose, and which I should strongly recommend to the adoption of Her Majesty's Government; I mean the renewal, with some slight modification, of that Act which was allowed to expire in the last Session of Parliament. If I am asked whether I wish to expel these particular individuals from the country, I answer in the negative. It will not be necessary to do so. Arm the Government with the power which they would have under that Act, and I am persuaded; that the bare possession of such power would be sufficient to repress and check this evil. I suggest, therefore, in the strongest manner, for the consideration of Her Majesty's Government, the propriety of proposing the re-enactment of the Act to which I have referred.
But there are other considerations connected with this matter to which I beg to allude. There are at this moment in this city many hundreds of foreigners—the great proportion of whom have been driven here by the storm of revolution on the Continent. The large proportion of them are men of desperate character and desperate fortunes, hostile to all regular governments, persons accustomed to the use: of arms, and ready to embark in any adventure of however bold and daring a kind. We know that their numbers are constantly increasing, and we are aware that within a very few weeks from this time an opportunity will he afforded to augment to an indefinite extent, without any good cause of suspicion, the numbers who are already here. Now, it is reported that one of the Committees to which I have referred has requested its agents on the Continent to send to this country on that occasion as many men of action as they can possibly furnish. I ask your Lordships, therefore, whether, with reference to what is now about to take place, we ought not to

627
adopt as an additional precaution, connected with those other measures which Her Majesty's Government are no doubt taking, the re-enactment, with some alterations, of the Bill to which I have just referred. The observations I have thus thrown out are made in no unfriendly spirit or disposition towards Her Majesty's Government. The only object which I have in view is to provide for the public safety, and to maintain unimpaired the esteem and regard of those foreign countries with which we are connected by treaties of friendship and alliance. I have nothing further to state than to make these suggestions, founded upon the facts which I have mentioned, verified by documents which are now in my possession, and which I am in a condition to present to Her Majesty's Government. My only desire has been to represent these facts, whilst I leave it to Her Majesty's Government to do that which, in their wisdom, and after due consideration, they think ought to be done for the purpose of meeting the evils I have referred to.
EARL GREY: My Lords, I regret that I was not made aware of the intention of the noble and learned Lord to bring this very important subject under the consideration of this House this evening. If I had had any notion that the subject was to be referred to at all, I would have taken care to have placed myself in communication with my noble Friend the Secretary for Foreign Affairs (Viscount Palmerston) and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department (Sir G. Grey), both of whom, I know, have their attention closely directed to this subject. In the absence of that communication with them, then, I do not think it expedient for me on the present occasion to say more than that Her Majesty's Government are well aware of the importance of the questions to which their attention has been directed by the noble and learned Lord; that I know my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department has had his attention most closely directed to all the alleged proceedings of certain parties in this country; and that he has had under his consideration what steps it may be necessary to adopt in reference to the subject. Further than this it is obviously impossible for me at present to enter into the question, unless it be to throw out this one observation: if I rightly understand the noble and learned Lord, he seems to apprehend that there is no effective remedy for the evils which he has pointed out, ex-
628
cept the renewal of an Act which was passed three years ago, shortly after the last French revolution, and which enabled Her Majesty's Government to require foreigners, under certain circumstances, to leave this country, I will only remind your Lordships that at the time that Act of Parliament was passed, those powers were asked for by Her Majesty's Government, and were granted them by Parliament, upon the express ground, and upon no other ground, than that these powers were required for the safety of this country, and were to be exercised to maintain and to ensure the safety of this country. I need not remind your Lordships that at that time an opinion was also very strongly expressed in both Houses of Parliament, that for no other purpose could those powers be properly granted or properly exercised. Whether a case of so much gravity might arise, that in order to enable this country to do its duty towards other Powers, this additional authority ought to be entrusted to the hands of the Executive Government, is a question upon which I feel myself unable, at this moment, to express an opinion. I will only say this, that I myself, for one, entertain an unhesitating opinion that nothing but a case of the greatest urgency and of the most obvious and flagrant necessity would justify Parliament in granting, or Her Majesty's Government in asking, powers very different from those which, under the free institutions of this country, the Executive Government usually possesses and usually exercises. Whether such a case may arise, is a question for future consideration, and upon which I will not at present express any opinion.
LORD LYNDHURSTexplained: I merely stated that there was a difficulty in instituting a public prosecution, and that there appeared, therefore, to be no effectual remedy except that to which I have referred. I am quite satisfied at having called the attention of Her Majesty's Government to the subject, and I am sure that they will do all that may be necessary for the maintenance of the public safety.
The EARL of ABERDEEN: My Lords, I beg to make one observation upon what has fallen from the noble Earl opposite (Earl Grey). I allude to the difficulties which he tells us stand in the way of the adoption of such a measure as my noble and learned Friend (Lord Lyndhurst) refers to. But, at least one thing is not very difficult, which he has omitted to do. The

629
noble Earl has omitted to state his disapprobation, and that of Her Majesty's Government, of the proceedings which have been described by my noble and learned Friend. Indeed, from one remark which has fallen from him, it would appear as if it were a matter of doubt whether Her Majesty's Government approve or disapprove of those proceedings. Now, I entertain no doubt on my own part about the matter; but I can assure the noble Earl that throughout Europe very great doubt is entertained upon the subject, and that it would be very satisfactory to different countries in Europe if they knew of the disapprobation of Her Majesty's Government of the proceedings my noble and learned Friend has described.
EARL GREY: My Lords, I confess I feel a little humiliated at being called upon by the noble Earl to make any explanation upon this point. If I omitted to express my entire concurrence in the opinion of the noble and learned Lord opposite, that those strangers who accept a refuge in this country, by accepting that refuge incur also a great responsibility, and duties which they cannot evade without being liable to great blame, I only omitted to do so because I thought the point was so clear that it was really and absolutely unnecessary for me to enter upon it further. It seems to me that no man can doubt that strangers accepting a refuge in this country have no right or title to abuse the protection which they so enjoy, for purposes so mischievous as those which the noble and learned Lord has described. And in stating that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department has had his attention closely directed to the subject, I thought my answer showed as clearly as I could express it, that Her Majesty's Government disapproved of any such proceedings as strongly as the noble and learned Lord himself; and that, to the full extent of the authority invested in them by the constitution and the law, they would discourage and discountenance all such proceedings.

THE CENSUS.
The BISHOP of OXFORDpresented a petition from the Deanery of Newbury, complaining of their being called upon to answer certain questions contained in the papers issued from the Registrar General's office, in connexion with the Census, and praying that it may be made imperative to reply to such queries, or that they might not be made at all. The questions referred
630
to the number of persons attending churches, the number of scholars attending National and Sunday schools, and other points of a similar nature. The petitioners objected to these queries being issued—1, because replies would fail to be made to them in many instances; 2, because any replies which might be made must necessarily be vague and incorrect; 3, because the general result must be conducive to the propagation of error rather than truth; 4, because the incorrect information thus obtained would be made available to the prejudice of the great interests over which the ministers of the Church were bound to watch. The returns for the Census must be sent in by Monday next, and therefore no time should be lost in conveying to the clergy an indication of the opinion of that House as to whether they should reply to the queries which had been put to them or not. An opportunity had been afforded him of consulting many of his brother Prelates on this subject, and they were unanimously of opinion that the effect of answering the queries would be what the petitioners stated. The subject was alluded to in their Lordships' House a few days since; and, in consequence of what passed on that occasion, another paper had been issued from the Registrar General's office, stating that no person was bound under a penalty to answer the queries objected to. It appeared to him, however, that this was not all that should be done. It was necessary to intimate that answers to the queries were not expected at all. MR. Canning once observed that nothing was so fallacious as facts except statistics. If that remark were true, generally, how much more closely would it apply to such garbled statistics as must be obtained in answer to the proposed queries. Authentic information was only attainable when demanded under a penalty. Under these circumstances, he hoped that Ministers would intimate that answers to the objectionable queries would not now be insisted on, and, if the information sought for should continue to be thought requisite, an enactment might be passed previously to the taking of the next Census which would render it imperative on clergymen and others to answer the queries intended to elicit it. If consulted by the clergy of his diocese as to the course they ought to pursue, he should be inclined to advise them not to answer the queries, and yet he was unwilling to place himself in an antagonistic position towards the Govern-

631
ment in this matter, and to seem desirous of thwarting efforts which could only originate in good intentions.
EARL GRANVILLEsaid, that some alterations had been made in the papers sent out, in consequence of a conversation which took place in their Lordships' House a short time ago. There was one point which the Home Secretary was willing to withdraw—namely, the question as to the endowment of the Church of England benefices—not that this was originally an improper question to ask, but it seemed to have led to misapprehension on the part of the clergy of the Church of England, and it would therefore be withdrawn. With reference to the statistics of the spiritual and secular education of the people of this country, it would be a great disappointment to the public if no effort was made by the Government, when such an opportunity occurred, at no additional expense but the mere extra printing, to obtain information on so important a subject. At the same time, they had thought it right that the public should be informed of the inquiries which they were bound to answer under penalties, and those which were of a voluntary character. With regard to schools, it was impossible to obtain the addresses of all schoolmasters beforehand, and a letter had therefore been sent instructing all the enumerators to inform schoolmasters that they would not be liable to penalties for refusing to answer the questions directed to them. A letter had also been sent to the clergy, on the subject of the inquiries as to religious instruction, of a similar character, but pointing out that it was important to ascertain whether the spiritual instruction afforded had kept pace with the increased wants of the population of 1851. The letter concluded by saying that the Registrar General relied on the sense which these parties would probably entertain of the value of the information applied for, and that he respectfully "invited" their co-operation. The right rev. Prelate seemed to think that one of two things would happen; either that the returns would not be given at all, or that if given in, they would be of a most imperfect nature. Now, he (Earl Granville) did not consider that the last of these anticipations was correct. He believed that, if the returns were made at all, they would be of a generally correct and ample character. But he did admit there was some danger, as the matter at present stood, that, in some cases, there would be
632
objections to making any return at all. The right rev. Prelate had stated that, however unwilling to put himself into resistance to the Legislature, he could not, under the circumstances, do otherwise than sanction the objections to these returns likely to be offered by clergymen within his own diocese. He (Earl Granville) could only suggest that, while other religious bodies were willing to co-operate with the Government, and to supply all the information of the nature required, of which they were in possession, it could not but redound greatly to the disadvantage of the ministers of the Established Church if they were, on this occasion, to persist in their disinclination to make these important returns in reference to the position and circumstances of their own Church throughout the country. He believed that this suggestion would have some force, and he did hope that, on further consideration, the right rev. Prelate would see the propriety of using all his influence over the clergy whom he superintended to induce them to meet the Government in this matter. With regard to the request that the Government would now pledge themselves not to tabulate these returns, he had to state that the instructions of the Act were specific, precluding any such pledge.
The BISHOP of SALISBURYthought it right to make some reference to the suggestion of the noble Earl that if the ministers of the Established Church declined making these returns, they would stand in a position disadvantageous as contrasted with the conduct of ministers of other Churches. Now there was nothing in the remarks of his right rev. Friend to justify the assumption that clergymen of the Established Church did object to make any full and fair returns required by the Legislature, or invited by the Government. Their objection was to making returns which would be necessarily incomplete. In his mind there was no doubt whatever that these returns would be imperfect, and that from their imperfections inferences would be drawn, unjust, mischievous, and dangerous. The Church of England had no reason to shrink from the closest examination; and if at any time the clergymen of that Church were called upon and found it in their power to make returns which would be accurately descriptive of her true position, the noble Earl would find them anxious and willing to lend all the aid at their disposal.
EARL FITZWILLIAMconsidered that

633
some of the returns asked for, from clergymen, were perfectly legitimate in character, and would be made accurately and without the least difficulty. But he agreed with the right rev. Prelate (the Bishop of Oxford) that some of the questions, such as that having reference to the number of persons frequenting churches, were improper, inasmuch as in nine cases out of ten the return would be imperfect and misleading. He was, therefore, of opinion that the right rev. Bench had good grounds for calling on the Government not to press for, and not to exact, replies to those objectionable applications. At any rate, it should be understood that the returns would not be tabulated.
The MARQUESS of BREADALBANEsaid, that he altogether disagreed with the right rev. Prelates who had offered these objections. That the returns, in many cases, would be incomplete, might be true; but that was no reason why they should ask for no information at all. The ministers of Dissenting denominations had not intimated any unwillingness to make the required returns; and he could not attribute it to anything but laziness to find this opposition on the part of clergymen of the Established Church.
The BISHOP of OXFORDcould assure the noble Earl that he did not object to one question, but to nearly all the questions in the document issued by the Registrar General. The noble Marquess had accused the clergymen of the Established Church of laziness. That was not very fair. They were not too lazy to make proper returns, but they did object to making improper returns. And even supposing that they were enabled to make correct returns, they would still be justified in objecting to these returns being asked for, and, if obtained, to their being tabulated; and for this reason, that other parties could not possibly make equally correct returns; that over such returns there would be no check; and that consequently on the whole the result would be mischievous and misleading. It was his opinion that it was, for every reason, better that they should have no information of this kind rather than imperfect information.
Petition read, and ordered to lie on the table.

COUNTY COURTS FURTHER EXTENSION BILL.
Amendments reported.
LORD BROUGHAM LORD BROUGHAM moved that the Bill
634
be recommitted, and described certain amendments which he had to propose. The first amendment remedied a defect which had been pointed out in the clauses respecting attorneys and attorneys' clerks, and their powers to practise in these courts. The second referred to the salaries of the Judges of County Courts. At present, in numerous cases, in consequence of the increase of business caused by recent legislation, the salaries of these Judges were far too low.
LORD BEAUMONTwished to know when the Bill was to be discussed. Certain clauses had been delivered to their Lordships only that morning, and the effect of those clauses had not been explained by the noble and learned Lord. He (Lord Beaumont) thought the Bill ought to be recommitted for the purpose of further discussion. He found it difficult to reconcile himself to the reconciliation clauses. He did not approve of the provision in the Bill, which enabled litigants, instead of employing counsel, to go to the County Court, and get the opinion of the Judge; and he thought at any rate that no harm would be done if barristers were allowed to state the cases. If the noble Lord would consent to recommit the Bill, the amendments might be considered seriatim.
LORD BROUGHAMsaid that he had no objection to adopt the course suggested by the noble Lord. As he would have another opportunity of addressing their Lordships, he would not follow the noble Lord (Beaumont) through the various errors into which he had fallen with respect to reconcilements.
Further Amendments made: Bill re-committed.
House adjourned till To-morrow.