Lords Sitting of 21 June 1852

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1ª Thames Embankment; Savings Banks (Ireland); Inland Revenue Office; County Rates; Poor Law Board Continuance.
2ª Commons Inclosure Acts Extension; Appointment of Overseers; Hereditary Casual Revenues in the Colonies.
Reported.—Poor Law Commission Continuance (Ireland).
3ª London Necropolis and National Mausoleum; Enfranchisement of Copyholds; Trustees Act Extension; Militia.

GUANO.
EARL FORTESCUEpresented a petition from the Occupiers of Land in the county of Devon, praying that measures may be taken to afford greater facilities in procuring supplies of Guano from the two Islands of Lobos. The noble Earl asked a question of the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, which was not audible.
The EARL of MALMESBURYadmitted that this was a question of great importance to all persons engaged in agriculture. These islands, however, had not been correctly described by the petitioners as never having been claimed by the Peruvian Government until the demand for the guano in which they abounded had arisen; on the contrary, the islands had been claimed by Peru as long ago as 1833, and their claims were admitted by the Queen's Advocate. The Peruvian Government, moreover, had evidently a primâ facie case to the possession of them; and Her Majesty's Government felt that it would not be justified in interfering for the protection of British vessels going to them under the idea that the guano deposited on them was a property which belonged to the first party who had seized on it. Having said thus much, it would be understood that Her Majesty's Government could not interfere to protect vessels going there, except under such regulation as the Government of Peru had established. Her Majesty's Government had, however, given instructions to the commanders of our cruisers in different parts of the world to take observations of all places wherein they might find deposits of guano; and he had little doubt that so many deposits of it would be found in Patagonia, Polynesia, and other countries, as would compel the Peruvian Government to lower their rates of prices for an article of commerce of which they had obtained a monopoly in combination with a mercantile house in that metropolis. He would have laid upon the table that day the papers which had been laid already on the table of the House of Commons in connexion with this subject, but, unfortunately, a sufficient number of them had not yet been printed.
Petition read, and ordered to lie on the table.

LAW OF MARRIAGE—MARRIAGE WITH A DECEASED WIFE'S SISTER.
The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNE: My Lords, I have a petition to present in favour of marriage with a deceased wife's sister from the inhabitants of the city of Bristol, signed by the mayor, 7 magistrates, 18 town councillors, 24 dissenting ministers, 55 solicitors, and 2,357 married women; also from the inhabitants of the towns of Kingswood and Littleton on Severn—in all 3 petitions, signed by 2,407 married women, and 7,640 male adults; making a total of 10,047 persons. My Lords, I ex-
996
press no opinion on the question raised in the petitions which I have presented, and which I feel to be an important one; and reserve to myself the right of dealing as I may think proper with any measure relating to this subject which may hereafter be submitted for the consideration of Parliament.
LORD WODEHOUSE: My Lords, I have similar petitions to present from the inhabitants of the city of Norwich, signed by the mayor, ex-mayor, ex-sheriff, 11 aldermen, 25 councillors, 3 clergymen, 12 magistrates, 1 baronet, 2 coroners, 29 guardians, the clerk of the peace, the town clerk, bankers, and 115 married women; also from the inhabitants of the town of Bury St. Edmunds, signed by the mayor, 2 clergymen, 5 magistrates, 5 professional men, and 37 married women; also from the inhabitants of the towns of Ipswich, Beccles, Long Melford, Clare, Framling-ham, and Wrentham; in all 8 petitions, signed by 585 married women, and 3,275 male adults; making a total of 3,860 persons. I consider the subject one of great importance, and earnestly hope the House will agree to the prayer of the petitioners.
LORD GAGE: My Lords, I also have several petitions to present on the same subject. The first is from the inhabitants of the city of Bath, signed by the sheriffs, 9 magistrates, 3 aldermen, 20 councillors, 2 dissenting ministers, 37 professional men, 328 married women, &c. The next is from the inhabitants of Southampton, signed by the mayor, 2 magistrates, 3 aldermen, 8 councillors, merchants, &c. I have also petitions from the towns of Avebury, Melksham, Mere, Salisbury, Charlton-Hordean, Christchurch, Cadnam, Gosport, Overton, and Petersfield—in all 12 petitions, signed by 891 married women, and 3,755 adult males—making a total of 4,646 persons. I own that I think both the complaint and prayer of the petitioners nothing but just, for I hold that no Government whatsoever has a right to restrain the liberty of its subjects by laws at once useless and unjust—in the present case I might add mischievous. I will only say further, that I hope and trust, whenever a remedial measure shall again be before you, reflection may procure it a reception very different to the last.
VISCOUNT SYDNEY: My Lords, I rise to present petitions from the city of Canterbury, signed by the mayor and others, from the city of Rochester, signed by the mayor and others; also from Ashford,

997
Bromley, Bexley, Deal, Dover, Elstead, Margate, Ramsgate, Walmer, and Woolwich; in all 12 petitions, signed by 2,914 persons. The prayer of the petitioners is one which I cordially support.
The EARL of MINTO: My Lords, I have similar petitions to present from the inhabitants of the city of York, signed by the lord mayor, recorder, city sheriff, city coroner, 4 magistrates, 23 councillors, 9 dissenting ministers, &c.; also from the inhabitants of the towns of Leeds, Billericay, Brill (2), Broadwindsor, Brotherton, Biggleswade, Bognor, Beaminster, Back-way, and Brackloy, in all 12 petitioners, signed by 165 married women, and 4,837 adult males, making a total of 5,002 persons.
LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY: My Lords, I have several petitions to present on the same subject, the prayer of which I most cordially support. The first is from the inhabitants of Liverpool, signed by the mayor, 6 ex-mayors, 11 clergymen, 16 dissenting ministers, 13 magistrates, 8 aldermen, 25 members of the town-council, 25 professional men, 15 merchants, bankers, barristers, &c.; from the inhabitants of the city of Chester, signed by one knight, 2 magistrates, I rector, gentlemen, solicitors, editors, merchants, tradesmen, &c.; also from the inhabitants of the towns of Congleton, Leftwich, Macclesfield, and Stockport; in all 6 petitions, signed by 341 married women, and 5,563 adult males, making in all 5,906 persons.
The EARL of LANESBOROUGH: My Lords, I have a similar petition from the city of Gloucester, signed by the mayor, sheriff, aldermen, town councillors, dissenting ministers, professional men, gentlemen, 30 married women, &c; also from the inhabitants of the city of Coventry, signed by the mayor, vicar, 3 clergymen, 5 magistrates, 4 dissenting ministers, 4 aldermen, 17 town councillors, &c; also from the town of Warwick, signed by the mayor, the whole of the corporation, clerk of the peace, 5 magistrates, 2 clergymen, 3 dissenting ministers, 414 married women, &C.; also, from the inhabitants of the towns of Atherstone, Lutterworth, Loughborough, Godmanchester, Leicester, Nouent, St. Neots, and St. Ives; in all 13 petitions, signed by 674 married women, and 2,714 adult males, making together 3,388 persons. My Lords, I heartily concur in the prayer of these petitions, and trust that some remedial legislative measure will be passed on this subject.
The EARL of ST. GERMANS:* My Lords, I have undertaken, at the request of a very large, a very intelligent, and a very respectable body of persons, to present to your Lordships a number of petitions, praying that you will concur with the other House of Parliament in amending the Marriage Law of this country, so far as it relates to marriage with the sister of a deceased wife. My Lords, great pains have been taken to verify the signatures, and to ascertain the station in life of the persons who have signed these petitions. The number of signatures appended to the petitions which have been presented by other noble Lords, and which are about to be presented by myself, exceeds 98,000. Amongst them are the signatures of many clergymen of the Established Church, of many ministers of different persuasions, of magistrates, of bankers, of lawyers, of medical men, of tradesmen, and of mechanics; the petitions have also been signed by nearly 16,000 married women, a class whose opinions have been frequently represented as unfavourable to the proposed alteration of the Marriage Law. My Lords, I believe there is not the name of a single person attached to these petitions who is not competent to form a correct judgment on this question. I, therefore, say that these petitions speak the sentiments and express the wishes of a very-large, a very intelligent, and a very respectable body of persons. My Lords, I trust that the anticipation of a more exciting discussion will not prevent your Lordships from listening with patience to the statement which I think it my duty to make on their behalf; it shall be brief.
My Lords, an association of persons deeply interested in the proposed amendment of the law, has been formed for the purpose of procuring and of diffusing information on this subject. It has been thought advisable by that association to ascertain the law and the practice of other countries in this respect. It has accordingly addressed inquiries to the proper authorities in foreign countries; and it has received from them authentic information on these points. My Lords, it appears by these communications, that, with the exception of four cantons and a half canton of the Swiss confederation, and of one State in the North American Union, this is the only country in which these marriages are not permitted: and, my Lords, I must guard myself, when I say this country, against admitting the law of Scotland

999
to be the same as the law of England in that respect. Much doubt exists on that subject. Many lawyers, amongst others the late Lord Advocate Rutherfurd, now a Lord of Session, are of opinion that these marriages are not invalid according to the law of Scotland.
My Lords, in some Protestant States, as Prussia, Holstein, the United States of America, and some others, no impediment is thrown in the way of these marriages; they are wholly unrestricted. In others, as in Holland, in Hanover, and in many of the German Duchies, in all which the civil law is in force, these marriages are indeed nominally prohibited, but practically they are permitted; the power of granting dispensations being vested either in the sovereign or in the ecclesiastical authorities, who never withhold those dispensations unless in cases where there has been criminal intercourse between the parties in the lifetime of the deceased wife. In Roman Catholic countries, as your Lordships well know, dispensation is granted by the Pope, or by a prelate having power delegated by the Pope. The Jewish communities throughout the world, whose marriage code is the Levitical law, hold these marriages not only to be lawful, but to be laudable, so much so, that in the case of marriage with a deceased wife's sister, they abridge the interval which in other cases must intervene between the death of the wife and the contracting of a new marriage.
My Lords, in looking over the documents submitted to my inspection, I have found several passages which are well worthy your Lordships' attention; a very few I will now read. In all the communications from foreign States, I find a general concurrence of opinion in favour of these marriages. I speak of public opinion as well as that of the authorities. Experience has shown that these marriages have not been productive of the evils anticipated by the opponents of the proposed change. I will, with your Lordships' permission, quote, as a specimen, the following extract of a letter from M. Haberman, of the Ducal Consistory of Saxe Coburg:—
"Having regard to the moral grounds which so particularly recommend marriages between a widower and the sister of his deceased wife, when orphan children demand the care of a second mother, and that the importance attached to the relation of brother-in-law has no foundation in Scripture, such marriages have become common,
1000
and there exists only the form of asking for a dispensation from this existing law."
In like manner, M. Wydenberg, of the Grand Ducal Council for Ecclesiastical Affairs in Saxe Weimar, says—
"Such marriages are certainly according to the laws of the Grand Duchy among the prohibited ones, but dispensation is granted on demand, and on payment of a fee, according to the circumstances of the parties. For the poor, the highest ecclesiastical authorities approve them without reserve."
Such is the state of the law in those Duchies. I will now read an extract of a letter from that very distinguished jurist, Judge Story. Speaking of the law and practice in the New England States—States, be it remembered, which are peopled by the descendants of the Pilgrim Fathers, men who regarded all the Mosaic precepts and all the Mosaic ordinances with great, I had almost said with superstitious, veneration, Judge Story says—
"There is not the slightest doubt, and never to my knowledge has been, in Massachusetts, that the marriage of a man and the sister of his deceased wife, is perfectly lawful, and valid, and scriptural. Indeed such marriages are very common among us, and among all sects of Christians. I recollect at this moment two between Episcopalians, within the circle of my acquaintance, and I mention them only as it has been supposed to be against the Canonical Law of the Church of England to allow such a marriage. By many persons connections of this sort are deemed the most desirable, especially when there are children of the first marriage. The same rule prevails (as I believe) in all the other New England States, and in by far the greater number of the other States in the Union. I recollect but a single exception—Virginia. Many years ago I had to consider this very question, as one of professional curiosity and learning. I was then of opinion, and still continue to be, that there is not the slightest foundation for any such prohibition in the Scriptures, and that wherever it exists, it has its foundation in some positive Municipal Law, or in the Canon Law as promulgated by the Romish Church, and thence transferred into the Canon Law of the English Church. It has been for more than a century and a half a matter of dispute in England, whether any such prohibition existed in the Canon Law of the Church of England; and Parliament a few years ago passed a Statute which created the prohibition, or recognised it. That Statute has given rise to new controversies on the subject, and has partly excited opposition in that country. I have several pamphlets in my possession, recently written, which discuss the subject at large, and with very great learning and ability, and all of them deny the scriptural foundation of the objection, and also that the Common Law deems such marriages prohibited. If I had ever entertained any doubts on the subject, these learned disquisitions would have perfectly dissipated them. But, in point of fact, everything that I have read upon the subject for the last twenty years, has satisfied me that the objection is per-

1001
fectly unscriptural and unfounded. The subject is incidentally touched in my own work on the Conflict of Laws, § 115, note 1, page 105. Many persons are of opinion that the whole doctrine had no better or higher origin than in the practice of the Romish Church to grant dispensations in such cases. Of the correctness of this opinion, I do not pretend to judge; for I have never deemed it a matter of the slightest importance. So offensive would any such prohibition be deemed in Massachusetts, that I am satisfied, that if our legislature were to attempt to introduce it, it would be met with universal indignation, and, á fortiori, any attempt of any religious sect to make it a part of its own laws, as unscriptural, would be deemed a usurpation of authority utterly unchristian and illegal. I well remember to have had a long conversation with my lamented friend, Judge Livingstone, on this very subject, near the close of his life, in which he maintained the same opinion with great earnestness and ability, and referred me to the pamphlet which he had written on the subject."
My Lords, I have a letter to the same effect from Chancellor Kent, another great authority. I hold also in my hand, a letter from a Protestant Bishop of the Episcopal Church, Bishop M'llvaine, the Protestant Bishop of Cincinnati, to the Secretary of the Marriage Law Reform Association. The Bishop, in answer to the inquiries addressed to him, says—
"A clergyman married to his deceased wife's sister, and not under ecclesiastical process therefore in England, coming to this country, would not be prevented by such marriage from being received as a minister of the Protestant Episcopal Church here, or from exercising his ministry. I should have no objection, nor would any Episcopal clergyman that I am acquainted with in these parts, have any objection, to celebrate the marriage referred to on the presentation of suitable testimonials."
My Lords, such is the law, such the practice, and such the opinion of foreign countries. I am very far from saying that we are hound or concluded by the law, by the practice, or by the opinion of any foreign country. But I do think, that when we find Christian and Protestant States, who have the same opportunity of judging of the question as we have, and the same means of arriving at a proper conclusion; I say, when we find in all these States, the law, the practice, and the opinion on this question at variance with our own—I will not say with our own opinion, or our own practice, but with our own—law, it becomes us well to examine the ground on which our law rests.
Now, my Lords, what are the foundations of that law? The statutes of Henry the Eighth, and the 99th Canon, to which so much importance is attached, are based on the assumption that such marriages are
1002
contrary to the word of God. My Lords, the people of England are a moral and re-ligious people; and if you can satisfy them that these marriages are forbidden by Scripture, no man would seek to alter the law in this respect. But what is the case? Not only do many of the most eminent scholars and divines hold that there is no such prohibition, but the right rev. Bench is itself by no means unanimous as to the existence of such a prohibition. Indeed, I doubt whether a majority of that Bench are not of a contrary opinion. Several right rev. Prelates have declared, both in this House and out of it, that these marriages are not forbidden in Scripture. Two made a statement to that effect in the debates which took place last Session on this question. It is true they opposed the Bill for legalising these marriages, but they did so on the ground of social expediency, and distinctly admitted that there is no warrant in Scripture for this prohibition. I am not prepared to say that in this country, where every man has access to the Scriptures, and where the right of private judgment is claimed and acknowledged, all would defer to the decision of the right rev. Prelates, even if it were unanimous, but I cannot doubt that very many would be influenced by it. Such a decision has not been and will not be pronounced. I say then that the assumption on which our law is based—the assumption that these marriages are forbidden in Scripture, is a gratuitous assumption, unsupported by proof.
Before the passing of the Acts 5 & 6 Will. IV., c. 54, the law was certainly in an anomalous and inconvenient state. Marriages within the prohibited degrees were voidable, not void; that is to say, they could only be set aside while both parties were living. No proceedings for this purpose could be taken after the death of either of the parties. The status of the children of such a marriage was then a matter of uncertainty. Accident or caprice might determine whether they should or should not be legitimate and capable of inheriting. This was, as I have said, an anomalous and inconvenient state of the law, and the noble and learned Lord opposite (Lord Lyndhurst) did well in bringing in a Bill to amend it.
The noble and learned Lord introduced a Bill, having for its object the limitation of the period within which such suits could be instituted. That Bill, in its progress through your Lordships' House, underwent

1003
a considerable change. A provision of a very different character was engrafted upon it. The effect of that was very nearly fatal to the Bill when it arrived in the other House of Parliament; and had it not been for the late period of the Session, and the expectation which was held out, that the subject would be again brought under the consideration of Parliament in the ensuing Session, I believe the Bill would not have received the sanction of the other House. But it did become law. Now, although that Bill was materially altered for the worse, it still recognised one most important principle. It recognised in the clearest and most express manner the difference between marriages within the prohibited degrees of consanguinity, and marriages within the prohibited degrees of affinity. The reason why the distinction was made was this—that the one description of marriage is contrary to the law of God, and the other is not. There is no disposition in the people of this country to contract marriages of the former description. Those who, regardless of the instinct of nature and the dictates of religion, contract such marriages, are looked on as guilty of a great crime. Legislation is scarcely needed to prevent their occurrence. There has been no desire on the part of any section of the people to alter the law with regard to marriages within prohibited degrees of consanguinity. How different the feeling with regard to the law respecting affinity!
The judicial decision in the case of the Queen v. Chadwick, set at rest any doubts that might be entertained as to the effect and operation of the existing law. In adverting to the case of the Queen v. Chadwick, I cannot refrain from reading an extract from a letter from a noble and learned Member of your Lordships' House, whose opinion will on this, as on every other occasion, be listened to with great deference and respect—I allude to Lord Denman; and I regret that he is not present to give effect to his opinions by a speech. The letter is dated "Parsloes, May 3rd, 1852," and is as follows:—
"I should hardly be justified in undertaking the petition you mention under present circumstances, though I am really anxious publicly to disclaim the imputation of having expressed any opinion upon the expediency or justice of the law you seek to repeal, in deciding the case of the Queen v. Chadwick.' On the contrary, I, in common with the other Judges of the Court of Queen's Bench, took pains to rest our decision on the mere wording of the Act of Parliament, and avoided all
1004
discussion as to whether it was founded either on Scripture or reason. I am quite convinced, after a most careful examination, that those bishops are right who have expressed their opinion that there is no scriptural prohibition of marriage with a deceased's wife's sister; and that it is, in fact, as the Bishop of St. David's declared, permitted by the Mosaic code. Considering who was the lawgiver, we cannot possibly impute inadvertence or mistake; and it follows, if this opinion be right, that the permission was purposely given. Upon the second branch of the question, as to the moral quality and social consequences of permitting such marriages, I cannot help thinking that the remark I have already made, if well founded, ought to have considerable, if not decisive, weight, and more particularly as these marriages were held in honour by the Jews, to whom the law was given, and who must be supposed most competent to understand it.
"The assumption of evil consequences is entirely unsustained by evidence; and, among all the irregularities and crimes which have often revolted the public mind as polluting married life among us, I am not aware of a single instance in which marriage with a deceased wife's sister has been even suspected as the cause. With regard to the third question, that of' expediency,' that is, the prevention of uncertainty by nullifying all such marriages, it appears to me that, as that experiment has wholly failed in point of fact, and such marriages are still contracted, notwithstanding the legal prohibition, by some of the most respectable members of the community, the only justification of the enactment, very doubtful in point of justice, is completely exploded by the result. A law which is universally felt to be more honoured in the breach than in the observance, cannot too soon, in my opinion, cease to be a law. I have not time to enter fully into the argument, and perhaps shall never be able to do so; but, as you inform me that some value is attached to my opinion, I cannot feel myself justified in withholding that which I have deliberately formed."
My Lords, in the case to which I have referred, it was held that a man who, having married the sister of his deceased wife, contracted another marriage in her lifetime, was not guilty of bigamy. Of the invalidity of marriages of this description, if contracted in this country, there is, therefore, no doubt; but the case is very different with regard to marriages contracted according to the lex loci in a country where they are legal.
My Lords, marriages which are good and lawful in the country in which they are contracted, are good and lawful everywhere; and the only question which arises in this particular case is, whether any personal disqualification or disability is created by the 5 & 6 Will. IV., c. 54. I believe it is the opinion of the best and soundest lawyers, that it creates no such disqualification. On this point I should be glad to hear the opinion of the noble and learned Lord opposite. Be that as it may,

1005
many such marriages are contracted under the belief that they are perfectly valid and legal marriages. If these marriages be really valid, then I say that you have one law for the rich, and another for the poor; for the rich man, who can afford to pay the expense, may go to Berlin, or Frankfort, or Copenhagen, or any other place abroad where such marriages are legal, and marry his sister-in-law; but the poor man, who must go to the parish church or the registrar's office, cannot contract such a marriage.
My Lords, I think that you have done either too much or too little in this matter. If these marriages are criminal, if they are forbidden by Scripture, you ought not to satisfy yourselves with rendering them null and void, and thus punishing only the innocent offspring. You ought to follow it up by a penal enactment inflicting penalties on the parties contracting such marriages, and separating them. I am not disposed to create artificial offences, that is, to make an act, innocent in itself, illegal; but if you think fit to do so, you should vindicate the authority of the law and enforce its observance. You can only do this by punishing those who transgress it.
My Lords, it has been said in this House, that the Act of 5 & 6 Will. IV., c. 54, did not legalise any marriage within the prohibited decrees, and that such marriages are still liable to ecclesiastical censure. This may be the law; but I know that no proceedings against the parties have ever been taken, and I believe that none ever will be taken; at any rate, I am sure that if such proceedings were taken, Parliament would interpose and protect those whose marriages it had declared should not he annulled.
It was said, at the same time, that Parliament sanctioned these changes in the law only for the sake of the innocent offspring of these marriages. My Lords, will it be contended that the offspring of a marriage within the prohibited degrees of consanguinity are less innocent than the offspring of a marriage within the prohibited degrees of affinity? No, my Lords, as I have observed, Parliament legalised marriages within the degrees of affinity because they are not contrary to the laws of God, or the law of nature: it did not legalise marriages within the degrees of consanguinity because they are contrary to both.
My Lords, I am bound to respect the
1006
conscientious conviction of those who, having fully and dispassionately considered the question, are of opinion that God has interdicted marriage with the sister of a deceased wife. I do not appeal to them, but I appeal to those who have not so considered the question; I call on them to examine the grounds on which their opinion rests, and not to be satisfied with a vague and general notion that such a marriage is wrong. More especially, my Lords, would I appeal to those who believe that these marriages are not contrary to the law of God, but who refuse to legalise them because they think that they would be productive of social evils.
I might refer to the experience of other countries, and, so far as it goes, to the experience of this country, as showing that no such evils are to be apprehended; and that in fact marriage with a deceased wife's sister is the best that a widower with children can make. But I will only say that if these imaginary evils were real, they would sink into insignificance when compared with those which are caused by the existing law. Much unhappiness, much sin, are caused by this law. Look at the evidence given by clergymen, resident in the metropolis and in the populous towns of this Empire. Almost all those clergymen wish for an alteration of the law. Many have signed these petitions: more would have signed them, had they not been restrained by the fear of giving offence to their Bishop.
But, my Lords, it is no part of our duty to inquire whether these marriages are or are not expedient. As the Archbishop of Dublin has well observed, many circumstances may make a marriage inexpedient, which no legislature ever dreamed of rendering illegal. Disparity of age, incompatibility of temper, bad health, had character, are strong objections to a marriage, but have never constituted legal impediments in its way.
The real question is, are these marriages contrary to the law of God? and if not, have we a right to forbid those to marry whom God has not forbidden to marry?
My Lords, if you will take these things into your consideration, you will, I think, be convinced that the restriction of which the petitioners complain is unjust, and that they are entitled to the relief which they seek at your Lordships' hands.
I must, in conclusion, express an car-nest hope that when a Bill for the modification of the law comes up from the other

1007
House of Parliament (and that such a Bill will come up in the course of the next Session, I have no douht) your Lordships will be prepared to give it your sanction.
I would now move that the petition, which is well deserving of your attention, be printed; but as that Motion would be inconsistent with the practice of this House, I must content myself with moving that it be read by the clerk at the table.
LORD LYNDHURST: My Lords, I do not rise for the purpose of entering into the general question which has been brought under your Lordships' consideration by the noble Lord who has presented this petition, which question I admit to be of very great importance. But, as my noble Friend has connected my name with a Bill which has received the sanction of the Legislature, and as considerable misrepresentation and misapprehension has existed with regard to that Bill, I am desirous of being allowed to enter into a short explanation with regard to it. That Bill makes no alteration whatsoever with respect to what cases come within the prohibited degrees of consanguinity or affinity. Whatever were the degrees of prohibition existing before that Act, they are the same now. If a marriage with a deceased wife's sister was unlawful before the passing of that Act, it is equally unlawful now. The Act was passed with entirely a different view, and did not pretend to enter upon that subject. Several cases had come under my notice where extreme hardship had been inflicted by voidable marriages. They appeared to me cases of extreme difficulty; and after a little reflection I came to the conclusion that the whole system of voidable marriages was cruel and unjust, and that the Legislature ought to interpose in some way to remedy the evil. It happened, in some cases, that the offspring of parents continued year after year to consider themselves as legitimate, as heirs of the property of their respective parents, or as entitled to succeed through their parents to property that might be settled by other persons, and, after having long enjoyed this expectation, some person interested might commence a suit in the Ecclesiastical Court for the purpose of voiding the marriage of their parents, when the children became bastardised and deprived of all the expectations they considered themselves entitled to. I considered that system to be so manifestly cruel and unjust, that I thought it my duty to endeavour to provide some remedy. And what was the remedy I proposed? By the
1008
law as it stood, after the death of one of the parents the marriage became binding: no proceeding could be instituted for the purpose of voiding it. There was a sort of statutory limitation; but it was uncertain, and therefore I thought the better course would be to abridge the period, and enact that, if proceedings were not taken to void the marriage within two or three years after the solemnization, from that period it should be considered as binding between the parties. I therefore brought in a Bill providing that if proceedings were not taken to void the manage within two or three years, after that period no such proceedings should be taken. When I stated the case to your Lordships, the proposition appeared to me at first to meet with universal concurrence; but, after some time, I found an opposition growing up to the measure principally arising from the right rev Bench, for which I always entertained so profound a respect; and after a great deal of discussion I found the Bill would be inevitably lost unless I adopted the suggestions which emanated from that quarter. That voidable marriages were attended with great inconvenience was admitted to the fullest extent; but then it was said you are remedying it by declaring such marriages void, and if parties chose to live contrary to law, and unlawfully cohabit, they must take the consequences of a violation of the law. Your Lordships were pleased to approve of that alteration, and the Bill was passed, and that enactment has continued in force to the present day. That, my Lords, is the short history of the Bill. It became material to consider what should be done with respect to past voidable marriages, and I proposed that the limitation should be a period of one year from the passing of the Act. Your Lordships were not disposed to accede to that proposition. On the contrary, your Lordships considered the evil of voidable marriages so strong, that it was declared that all marriages solemnised before the passing of the Act should henceforth be declared lawful. That is the whole history of the Act. Now, my Lords, there are several important questions to which my noble Friend alluded, arising out of this state of the law. What are we to do, and to what conclusion are we to come, in regard to marriages celebrated abroad, in countries where marriages with a deceased's wife's sister are lawful? The first question relates to cases where the parties are domiciled abroad. But another question arises in consequence of a practice

1009
to which his noble Friend had alluded, namely, the case where parties who are not domiciled go abroad for the purpose of evading the law which prevails here, and after getting the marriage solemnised return to this country. What is the state of marriages so solemnised? My Lords, this applies to an immense class of persons in this country, and the Legislature ought to come to a conclusion on this subject, for I am told that at this moment there is a clergyman at Hamburgh who acts a part very similar to that of a celebrated person at Gretna Green, who for a small sum solemnises marriages between parties coming from this country and being in the relation described, in the hope that these persons may be considered, when they return to this country, as lawful husband and wife. Whether that question may come before a court of justice, it is not for me to anticipate. As a member of a tribunal which may have to decide on such a question, I do not feel that I should be justified in giving an opinion; but, considering the large number of persons placed in this situation, I must say it is a question of the utmost importance, and deserving the most serious consideration of your Lordships.
LORD CAMPBELL: My Lords, I exceedingly rejoice to hear the statement of my noble and learned Friend, for there has been gross misunderstanding and misresentation upon this subject, not only in your Lordships' House, but out of doors, for the agitators have been very unscrupulous. They first asserted, that according to the law of England as it now stands, the marriage of a widower with the sister of a deceased wife is lawful. They induced a great number of marriages to take place between parties in that relation; and these marriages are now brought forward as an argument for legitimatising such marriages. There was a solemn and unanimous decision, by the Court of Queen's Bench, that such marriages are void. What was the state of the law? It was boldly asserted that they were void merely by Lord Lyndhurst's Act; and petitions have been presented, praying your Lordships to do away with the effect of Lord Lyndhurst's Act, and restore the legality of these marriages. My noble and learned Friend has shown truly that his Act did not make any alteration whatever in the law of England. These marriages were illegal before the Act was passed—they are illegal still—they stand on the same footing with marriages which were illegal by reason of consanguinity. The
1010
marriage between a widower and his deceased wife's sister stood on the same footing as a marriage between father and daughter and mother and son. Those marriages were not void, but only voidable. That was a most lamentable state of the law of England; and therefore the country was indebted to my noble and learned Friend for bringing in a Bill which made such marriages actually void. My Lords, I hope that the law will remain unaltered. There is another point to which my noble and learned Friend has alluded, on which I will venture to give an opinion, namely, with respect to a widower going to a foreign country and there marrying the sister of his deceased wife. I caution all men against such marriages. If they are English subjects the Legislature of England has a right to legislate upon their acts all over the world. We never can do what has lately been done in France—seek to legislate upon the acts of foreigners out of our territory; but we may legislate upon the acts of foreigners within our territory, and upon the acts of our own subjects all over the globe—and the law which exists here against incestuous marriages will in the case of British subjects render those marriages void wherever they are contracted. We had a memorable instance of this in the case of the Sussex Peerage. That marriage was contracted according to certain forms prevailing where it took place, and would have been a valid marriage but for a particular Act of Parliament, by which the descendants of George the Third were disqualified from contracting marriage except on certain conditions. That question was solemnly and unanimously determined by your Lordships; and on the principle of that decision I would caution all persons that they ought not to place any confidence in going to a foreign country with the idea of evading the law of England on that important subject. I was in hopes, that after the overwhelming majority in this House on the question of marriages with a deceased wife's sister, the agitation would have ceased; but it goes on with great activity, and no pains, no money, no waste or expenditure of money, is spared for the purpose of continuing it. It has been said that these petitions contain 90,000 signatures; but what is that number in a country containing 20,000,000 inhabitants? The argument of my noble Friend amounts to this:—"You should follow the example of other nations." But if you follow the example of other nations, you will allow a

1011
marriage between the uncle and the niece. That is a marriage allowed not only in Roman Catholic countries by dispensation, but in the Protestant countries of Germany, and I believe in some of the States of America, Are we to follow the example of other nations in allowing divorcer at pleasure? Such, to the honour of the Roman Catholic Church, they did not permit; but such, to the discredit of the Protestant Churches of Germany, they do permit. Instead of following such examples, your Lordships should rather desire to become a model to the rest of the world.
The BISHOP of ST. ASAPH: My Lords, the arguments by which the noble Earl advocated the case which he has brought forward so strongly, were chiefly founded on the number of petitions. Now I will answer for it, that with one-tenth part of the agitation, ten times the number of signatures might have been obtained against the measure with the greatest facility. He next urged the law and custom of other countries, and on this point I agree with the noble and learned Lord who has just spoken, and who has expressed what must be the prevailing feeling of your Lordships, that this country ought to be an example to the whole world. Let us do what is right. I believe myself that the question is a question which is settled by the Bible. I believe that the alteration which took place in our Saviour's time with regard to marriages was this—that he put the sexes on an equality; that before, under the Jewish law, they were not upon an equality; that the law of which we are talking was a law which allowed polygamy; and that when the Saviour made man and woman entirely equal, be put us upon a new constitution as far as marriage is concerned. Now let me ask any Englishman this question. Will any Englishman venture to say that he may marry the widow of his brother? Will any Englishman venture to say that he wishes he might be allowed to marry the widow of his brother? With regard to these marriages being voidable and not void, there appears to be some mistake; they were always void, but the jurisdiction was only in the Ecclesiastical Court, and that court only adjudicated by way of remedy, and could only punish a person for the sake of his own soul. [A laugh.] I don't know whether I am clearly understood. It does not punish him for the sake of society. It punishes him in order that it may do good to him. Now when the parties are dead, there can be no
1012
remedy, and then the civil law is allowed to touch the children. I entirely agree with the noble and learned Lord in the hope he has expressed that this question would have been set at rest by the last decision of your Lordships. Depend upon it, it is set at rest in the opinions of the people of England; and they may go on agitating, and agitating, and agitating, and paying for their agitation—they care nothing about paying, they are paying enormously all over the country—but they will never succeed in carrying their point. Let them take the votes of the women of England, and if they do not find them ten to one against the proposed alteration, I am very much mistaken.
The BISHOP of SALISBURY: My Lords, I am not desirous of entering into this subject, and I rise merely to make one remark. I can only say with reference to the general arguments which the noble Earl has addressed to your Lordships, that they do not appear to me to add anything to those which he brought forward on a previous occasion with such great earnestness and ability, and which were replied to by other arguments which appeared to the great majority of this House to possess much greater weight; and I have no doubt, if the occasion should again arise, that your Lordships will come to a similar decision. My only object in rising on the present occasion is to express the great astonishment with which I listened to the statement made by the noble Earl, that he believes the opinion of a great majority of the bench on which I have the honour of sitting to be that there is no foundation in Scripture for an opinion contrary to that which he entertains on this subject. It would ill become me, and I will not presume, to state what are the opinions of the majority of my right reverend Brethren. But I will say this, that I never in my life heard a statement to which I listened with more unfeigned astonishment. I recollect on the last occasion the rejection of the Bill was moved by my most reverend Brother the Archbishop of Canterbury, whose argument was founded altogether on the ground of Scripture. A most learned and elaborate argument was addressed to the House by my right rev. Brother the Bishop of Exeter, founded mainly on the Scriptural view of the subject. One of my right rev. Brethren, indeed, strongly opposing the Bill on other grounds, expressed a doubtful opinion, or perhaps a positive

1013
opinion, that the Scriptural ground was not maintainable; but how the noble Earl has been able to infer that the great majority of my right rev. Brethren are of his opinion, I cannot conceive. I confess, however, that my astonishment was somewhat abated, when the noble Earl said that the opinion of clergymen was almost unanimous on the question.
The EARL of ST. GERMANS: Of large towns.
The BISHOP of SALISBURY: The astounding nature of that assertion took away in some degree the surprise with which I listened to the former one. The names of four or five incumbents of populous parishes—gentlemen to he spoken of with great respect—were on the last occasion paraded in reference to this subject; but their authority would have been greater if it had not been coupled with arguments so thoroughly untenable. But I should have thought that nothing could be clearer than that the vast majority of the parochial clergy, whether in populous parishes or not, are opposed to the alteration that is proposed. I must apologise to the House for occupying your Lordships' time, but I thought it not desirable that so strong an assertion should go forth without at least something being said in mitigation of its character.
The Petitions were then ordered to lie on the table.

COUNTY COURTS FURTHER EXTENSION BILL.
LORD BROUGHAMrose to move that the Commons' Amendments in the County Courts Further Extension Bill be considered and agreed to. In consideration of the increasing duties of the County Courts Judges, the House of Commons had fixed the present salaries of those Judges at a minimum of 1,200 l. per annum, with the power of increasing them to 1,500 l., and in consequence of that a clause had been inserted that "after the passing of this Act" no County Court Judge should practise either as barrister, counsel, special pleader, conveyancer, or attorney; in short, confining them to their judicial duties. He should propose as an Amendment on this provision, that the prohibition should come into operation not immediately, but after three months, as some of these gentlemen might have undertaken business not yet completed. The only Amendment to which he anticipated any objection, related to the subject on which he had just presented a
1014
petition. The Commons had repealed the prohibition in the Act of 1846, of barristers taking County Court briefs from the parties. In the County Courts alone, of all Courts in this country, great or small, metropolitan or provincial, was there any statutory prohibition of a barrister receiving instructions directly from his client without the intervention of an attorney. The rule and etiquette of the profession was undoubtedly against the barrister going into Court as an advocate uuinstructed by an attorney; but there was no prohibition, even by usage and etiquette, against his seeing his client in chambers, for instance, and conferring with him upon matters of a private and delicate nature. Generally speaking, undoubtedly, the usage of the profession required the interposition of an attorney or solicitor between the counsel and the client, and the heads of the profession discountenanced a breach of the usage; but in all Courts except the County Courts it rested entirely upon that usage and that discountenance, and there was no prohibition either by common law or by statute. Why should it be otherwise in the County Courts? If such a practice was contrary to etiquette, prohibiting counsel by law from doing an unprofessional thing was disrespectful to the body. Why not leave those Courts, like all the others in this respect, to the usage and etiquette of the profession? There were occasions when the prohibition might act most injuriously to barristers; when, in self-defence, a counsel ought to be allowed to break through the ordinary rule. He remembered a case in which the breach of the rule was found not only a benefit, but absolutely necessary to the professional existence of a barrister. The instance he referred to was that of a barrister who happened, in his place in Parliament, to give offence to the attorneys and solicitors. The offence consisted of two parts—substantive and formal. The substantive offence was the introduction, in the year 1830, into Parliament of a Local Courts Bill, which the other branch considered would be injurious to them. The formal offence was certain words which the barrister had used, or was said to have used, and were deemed by the attorneys to be offensive to them; and it was of this formal part they took advantage to assail him for the injury which the other part was supposed to have inflicted on them; whereupon they issued a printed circular to the members of their branch of the profession who belonged to the barristers' circuit, ad-

1015
vising them to show their opinion of the conduct of Mr. So-and-So who had used such expressions of and concerning them. That meant, of course, to withdraw their briefs from him. There being no statutory prohibition as now in the case of the County Courts; nothing but etiquette and usage to prevent him from' adopting the course he thought advisable under the circumstances; he at once gave notice that he should open his doors to clients and see them without the intervention of an attorney. He was joined in that course by others at the head of the profession, who pledged themselves to stand by him, and, if need were, join in taking the same course; and he thus at once put at end to the combination, which he could not have done if such a statutory prohibition existed with reference to the Superior Courts as now did with reference to the County Courts. It was said that usage and etiquette and discountenance by the heads of the profession might suffice in the Superior Courts, but would not have the same operation in the inferior. But we trusted to these things in all the inferior Courts, except the County Courts—in cases as far removed, and further, from the guard and check afforded by the superintendence of the heads of the profession—in bankruptcy, insolvency, police courts, criminal courts, cases before justices at quarter-sessions, or before two justices or a single justice—in all these the prohibition existed not; and yet if anything irregular or unprofessional were done by a practitioner, it would be much more likely to escape attention in the crowd of Westminster Hall than in a country place, where the bar was small in number, and where all eyes were upon each of its members. He could hardly describe to their Lordships how greatly the bar had suffered from the want of some such protection as would be afforded them by the reinsertion in this Bill of the repealing clauses which their Lordships had struck out, and the power thus given of recovering briefs from parties directly—a power, however, which he advised should not be used otherwise than defensively, for he approved of the etiquette which required the intervention of an attorney. With regard to cases in the Nisi Prius and other Superior Courts, he was of opinion that it was expedient to discountenance the practice of barristers taking briefs without the intervention of attorneys; and he did not see how, in ninety-nine cases out of a hundred, it would be possible for them to do so. Indeed, if counsel were to see witnesses, and take
1016
down their evidence, they would require the assistance of persons who were half barristers clerks, and half attorneys, to discharge some of the duties of attorneys. In some parts of the country, however, the members of the bar were told by attorneys, "It is as much as your professional existence is worth if you ever cross the threshold of a County Court. If you take a brief in a County Court, we will give you no briefs on circuit, at sessions, or in bankruptcy." Now, the bar might protect themselves against such interference by going into Court without the instructions of an attorney, and it was most fit that they should have that protection. He ventured, therefore, to hope that their Lordships would adopt the Amendments of the House of Commons, which had received the sanction of the present Attorney and Solicitor General, and also of the late Attorney and Solicitor General. He might add, that he thought it important that the practice of attorneys acting as advocates should be discountenanced, though he saw the difficulty of preventing it, and he now placed much reliance on the provisions which some of his noble and learned Friends had introduced with this view, and which the Commons had rejected. He begged to move that their Lordships do agree to the Amendments introduced by the House of Commons.
The LORD CHANCELLORobserved, that the subject to which the noble and learned Lord had referred was one of very great importance. He had taken no part in the discussion on a former occasion; but for his own part, he would never have agreed to the enactment which prohibited, in words, barristers from acting without the intervention of attorneys, although no one disapproved of such a practice more than he did, and no one would be more anxious to prevent members of the bar from resorting to such a practice. He would not, however, have consented to stigmatise the bar by providing that they should not do that which it was discreditable to do according to the general feeling of the profession. The members of the bar, if they were not amenable to the Judges, were amenable to their own Societies; and if a barrister were to misconduct himself by acting as an attorney, it was quite clear that such conduct would be animadverted upon by the Society to which he belonged; and if he persisted in it he would doubtless be disbarred. A man belonging to the profes-

1017
sion necessarily became obedient to its rules, for he would at once become an outcast from professional society if he pursued a course at variance with professional etiquette. He (the Lord Chancellor) would therefore have left the matter to the high and honourable feelings of the members of the bar themselves. He would never have agreed to a law which stigmatised the practising of a barrister in the County Courts without the intervention of an attorney, when in every other court the bar were left to their own feelings of honour. The provision of which he disapproved having been rejected by the House of Commons, as the Bill now came before their Lordships with the authority of the Law Officers of the Crown, and of the other House of Parliament, he was unwilling to offer it any opposition. The consequence of the alterations made in the measure would be that the bar would be left in the County Courts upon the same footing on which they stood in all other courts; and, if it were found that the result of such alterations was the misconduct of individual members of the bar, he would be as ready as any one to strike at that misconduct, and to restore the bar to that position which it ought to hold in public estimation. He thought that each grade of the profession should maintain its own proper station; and if they would receive a word of advice from one who had long experience, he could assure them that by maintaining their own position they would far better guard their own interests than by taking any other course. He would neither elevate an attorney to the position of a barrister, nor would he allow a barrister to enact the part of an attorney.
LORD LYNDHURSTwas understood to express his approval of the Amendments introduced into the Bill, on the ground that they would tend to protect barristers against the combinations of attorneys, who were endeavouring to drive them from the County Courts.
LORD CAMPBELLstated, that it was not his intention to offer any opposition to the Bill. He thought the two grades of barristers and attorneys should not encroach upon one another's functions, and that the due administration of justice in this country depended very materially upon the line of distinction between those classes of the profession being maintained. He had been apprehensive that the withdrawal of the prohibition which had been imposed by Parliament would seem like
1018
giving a sort of Parliamentary sanction to the encroachment of the barrister upon the province of the attorney; but, after the authoritative declaration of his noble and learned Friend, he thought the honour of the bar and the interests of the public would be as safe in the County Courts as in the Superior Courts at Westminster Hall or upon circuit.
LORD CRANWORTHhaving intimated that he would not offer any objection to the Amendment,
Amendments considered and agreed to; and Bill sent to the Commons,

OUTRAGE ON A BRITISH SUBJECT AT FLORENCE.
LORD BEAUMONTrose, pursuant to notice, to draw the attention of the House to the correspondence respecting the assault committed on Mr. Erskine Mather at Florence. It was now some time since the papers to which his notice referred had been laid upon the table, and their Lordships had therefore had a full opportunity of making themselves acquainted with their contents. Although the papers themselves professed to refer to an incident which was certainly of an unfortunate, but which also was in some degree of a personal, character, other grave and far more important questions had arisen in the course of the negotiations on the subject. Moreover, their Lordships would observe, that a case which appeared in the first instance simple in itself, and admitting of easy arrangement, had been so conducted in its subsequent stages, that a process similar to that applied to the Gordian knot would be alone capable of unravelling it. The matter had attracted great attention both in-doors and out of doors; it had been the subject of a debate in the other House of Parliament, and had been commented upon in many of the public prints. Indeed, charges had been directly made against the Government, that sufficient attention had not been paid, in the conduct of this business, to what was due to the dignity of this country. He thought, therefore, that he was not only fully justified in bringing the subject under the notice of the House, but that these circumstances rendered it almost an obligation on the part of their Lordships to take some notice of the papers to which his notice referred before the close of the present Session of Parliament. In calling attention to these papers, he would avoid, as far as possible, anything like mere verbal criticism or allusion to

1019
trivial points, and would dwell upon those matters alone in which he thought a principle was involved, or which were of material importance in respect to our relations with certain foreign countries for the future. He would divide the subject into two parts: first, that which referred merely to the incident itself; and, next, the questions which arose out of the negotiations to which that incident had led. With regard to the first point, it must be taken for granted that when an Englishman travelled in foreign countries, he was entitled to the full protection of the Governments of those foreign States, so long as he obeyed the laws of the State, and complied with the usages and manners of the country, so far as not wantonly to offend even the prejudices of the people. When a person thus complying with and obeying the law received a wrong, if such wrong was inflicted by another private individual in no way representing the authority of the State, it became the duty of the person injured to seek redress, in the first place, according to the laws of the country, and not to call in the assistance of the representative of his own country to interfere in his behalf. When, however, it happened that the person inflicting the wrong was acting under the Government of the country, or performing any duty placed upon him by that Government, the question assumed a totally different aspect; and then, instead of appealing, in the ordinary way, to the law as between individuals, the injured person certainly had a claim upon his own country to demand some kind of reparation for the wrong inflicted upon him by persons representing the Government under whose protection he was at the time placed. He would now ask their Lordships' attention to the unfortunate events which gave rise to the negotiation to which he wished to call their attention. [Here the noble Lord recapitulated the leading facts connected with the assault, which have been stated in previous debates. [See vol. cxxi. pp. 1172, 1263, &c] The noble Lord then proceeded to comment upon these statements.] It was as clear as possible, from the evidence before their Lordships, that Mr. Mather in no way attempted to offer the slightest insult to the officer who struck him, either by gesture, word, or motion. It appeared that he was simply following the band and listening to the music. Whatever the officer might afterwards say was the impression on his mind, it was clear the youth had no intention whatever to insult
1020
him or any other person. For it seemed that when the brother went to Prince Lichtenstein, and was telling his story, the Prince, having heard a different story from the officer, said—"Oh, but your brother put his arm thus." "No," said the youth, "he did not do that, but merely turned round to ask the meaning of the blow from the officer." Prince Lichtenstein said afterwards distinctly, that the result of the inquiry instituted among the soldiers was entirely in conformity with what Mr. Mather's brother had told him, confirming the fact that the youth had not in any way put up his hand; and their Lordships would also find it stated at page 49 of the printed papers, as the result of the inquiry on the spot, "that the Englishman did not in any manner offend the Austrian." Even Radetzky said, "The accident was without intending any offence on the part of the Englishman." The evidence was equally clear that the offending officer had no intention whatever to insult or injure any Englishman. They certainly did not know the man was an Englishman, and could have had no anti-English feeling in the steps taken; nor had they any individual or personal feeling against Mr. Mather, being ignorant of who or what he was: the fact was, they took him for an Italian; and they seemed to have been in the habit of spurning Italians out of the way, as they did dogs, and the angry feeling which was exhibited on the occasion in question was merely the result of the anti-national feeling which existed on the part of the Austrians towards the Tuscans. As soon as the event, which was rather serious in its nature, had occurred, and the wounded man had been conveyed to the hospital, Mr. Mather's brother went to Mr. Scarlett, and represented the matter to him. It appeared that the two Mr. Mathers, and afterwards their father, when he arrived at Florence, invariably said that they were content to leave everything in the hands of Mr. Scarlett. They did not specify what they wanted further than redress for an insult wantonly inflicted on a peaceable and unoffending Englishman by an officer on service. They neither asked for a judicial inquiry nor damages, but merely said that they left the matter entirely in his hands, to do as he should think fit. At first, it seemed, Mr. Scarlett sent the brother of Mr. Mather with a letter to Prince Lichtenstein, who, he said, was a good-natured man, and would hear his story. It appeared to him

1021
(Lord Beaumont) that Mr. Scarlett, seeing that Mr. Mather had placed the matter entirely in his hands, would have done better if, instead of sending the youth to Prince Lichtenstein, he had examined into the matter himself, and decided at once whether he should proceed in an unofficial manner with Austria, or in an official manner with the Tuscan Government; and the impression left on his mind by the correspondence in the case certainly was, that, if Mr. Scarlett had chosen, the matter might easily have been unofficially arranged at an early stage of the affair;; because Prince Lichtenstein was soon convinced that no insult was intended on the part of Mr. Mather; and if, therefore, the officer on service, Lieutenant Forsthuber, as well as Lieutenant Rarb, who was not on duty, had been placed under arrest, and an expression of regret had been tendered on the part of Austria for what had been done, there would have been little difficulty, he thought, of arranging the matter, especially as the person injured claimed no compensation, but merely desired that the honour of his country should be vindicated. Mr. Scarlett, however, did not attempt to arrange the matter unofficially; and not having done so, in his (Lord Beaumont's) opinion, he had no choice hut to proceed against the Tuscan Government officially; and that from that moment Austria was rid of the whole question. He was aware that in another place a different opinion had been expressed; and he had been told by others, for whose opinion he entertained a high respect, that it was a mistaken course to apply officially to Tuscany, and that Mr. Scarlett ought to have applied to the Austrian authorities. But what would have been the consequence if Austria had been applied to instead of Tuscany? To have done so would have been at once to have acknowledged that Tuscany was subordinate to Austria; and he believed our Government would have got what they desired on very easy terms, if they had so acted as to acknowledge that Tuscany was a part of Austria, as much as Lombardy was. But if they had done so, they would never afterwards have been able to have treated with Tuscany in matters of commerce, or in anything else, as an independent Power: all our applications in regard to commerce or any other subject must thereafter have been addressed to Austria, from the position in which we ourselves would have placed her. On this point, therefore, he was of opinion
1022
that Mr. Scarlett and the Government were completely right in saying that Tuscany should be responsible as long as she maintained her independence—that while exercising the rights she must take the obligations of an independent Power. Up to this point the late Government was in power. There was one passage, however, which he found in a despatch by Lord Granville which he confessed he could not exactly understand. It was as follows:—
"But if this inquiry is not fairly conducted, and influence is used to suppress the truth, the British Government will be obliged to ask for reparation for this outrage upon an offending and unarmed British subject from Austria."
This certainly seemed to him to be rather inconsistent; because, having once declared that Tuscany was responsible, he did not see that the Government were at liberty to travel from Tuscany to any other Power; otherwise, if they went to Austria because Tuscany refused redress, they might in the same way ask redress from the German Diet if they did not get it from Austria, and so go round the whole world. But their duty was to fix upon some one Power, and make that Power responsible. He did not, therefore, understand the bearing of this passage. But, however, up to this point the case seemed to be perfectly clear. The question then arose as to what was "full redress." He (Lord Beaumont) did not profess to say what was proper redress; but this he would venture to say—that there was only one party who could properly decide that, and that was the Government of this country. It was not for Mr. Mather to do it. Mr. Mather was out of the question. This ease had been taken up officially; there was nothing of a personal nature in it; it was a question between the Government of Great Britain and the Government of Tuscany, and it was for the Government of Great Britain to say what they considered to be proper redress. Mr. Scarlett, it appeared (not at the request of Mr. Mather, but as representing England) called for what he designated a full judicial inquiry. He received an answer from the Duke de Casigliano which showed that he had not the slightest intention ever to give what we would call a full inquiry. He said that he would give an inquiry in order to ascertain the whole truth, which was evidently a quibble. His intention was merely to establish a private inquiry for the satisfaction of the Government, in order to get at the merits of the case, and without the slightest view of

1023
proceeding to trial, of obtaining a verdict, or of going to a public court, or doing justice in any way. A description of the kind of court of inquiry which was used on the occasion was given in many parts of the papers on their Lordships' table. First of all, none of the parties were admitted. A distinguished person was engaged as an advocate; but he was never of any use. He never could have appeared, and never did. Mr. Scarlett, after noticing the evidence that was taken, said—
"The power of the Tuscan tribunal here ceases, for the open court into which the case would now naturally be transferred, is not competent to judge an Austrian soldier in Tuscany, he being amenable only to the military laws and jurisdiction of the army in which he serves."
Well, what took place after this inquiry? It appeared that the Duke de Casigliano treated Mr. Scarlett in an extraordinary manner. He first made the inquiry, not allowing any person to be present; he then sent the report of the inquiry to the Austrian authorities; but not to Mr. Scarlett. Mr. Scarlett was obliged to apply to him for a copy of the document, which the Duke sent him at last, not as a right, but as a favour. The whole of the evimight be called a mere ex-parte statement; but this he must say, that while the Tuscan court of inquiry was not what he desired, it was purity itself compared with the court of the neighbouring country of the Roman States. The inquiry, so far as it went, seemed to have been fairly gone about. There was no evidence that the witnesses were either threatened or tampered with, or any steps taken to prevent them speaking as candidly and fairly as they would have done anywhere else. The result of the inquiry was, as he had already stated, that "the Englishman did not in any manner offend the Austrian." When the present Government came into office they had all these particulars before them, the matters had been fully investigated; no further inquiry was necessary; the Government had only to specify the redress, and stick to it. He regretted to say that the first step taken by the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Malmesbury) was one which did not become his place, and ought upon no ground to have been taken. The noble Earl invited Mr. Mather to do that which it was the duty of the Government to do—namely, to assess the damages in a case pending between the two Governments. He called upon a private individual—the man who
1024
was actually a party concerned—to state what should be the amount of reparation for the injury done in his person to the national honour. A more extraordinary proposal it seemed impossible to imagine. But what did Mr. Mather do? He all along said he was unwilling to give any opinion on the subject. He more than twenty times declared that he wished to leave the question entirely in the hands of the Government. He said, "what that should be it is for Lord Malmesbury, who represents British interest and British honour, and officially secures protection to British subjects abroad, to decide;" and if Lord Malmesbury had at once stated what it was to have been, Mr. Mather would not have said another word on the subject. Mr. Mather left himself completely in the hands of the Government, and by their determination he would have been bound. He stated further—
"Lord Malmesbury having been pleased to indicate that he thought personal reparation should be obtained by Mr. Erskine Mather, and to desire Mr. Mather's opinion on this point, he begs to state that it is with the utmost pain that he addresses himself to it, and that nothing but the official commands of his Lordship should have made him deviate from the uniform course he and his unfortunate son have invariably taken in this matter, of refusing to make it a personal question, but one of a higer and more important nature."
Then, again—
"Mr. Mather again begs to repeat to his Lordship that this is the most painful part of the duty imposed upon him in all the trying circumstances with which this unfortunate affair has been attended, and that respect for the views and wishes of Lord Malmesbury have alone induced him to express an opinion upon this point of the question."
Under these circumstances he really thought it was hard to have forced Mr. Mather into viewing this as a case for pecuniary compensation.
The EARL of DERBY: Read the paragraph about the 5,000 l.
LORD BEAUMONT:—
"Mr. Mather, taking into consideration the grievous injury inflicted, the risk of his son's life, his sufferings, the continued injury to his health, the eventual uncertainty of future results, the party that inflicted it being the officer of a Government which has been implicated by his act, and the probability that an appeal for reparation in an impartial court, and on the principles universally recognised, would have produced a large amount of reparation in such a case, Mr. Mather names to his Lordship 5,000 l. as what seems to him, under all these circumstances, just and proper, and as not overvaluing the injury and its probable consequences to his son."

1025
Before that, however, Mr. Mather submitted—
"That some marked punishment for an act proved by the sworn evidence of impartial witnesses to have been gross and unprovoked should be inflicted upon the offender, such as is fitting for an act of that description committed upon a British subject by an armed officer of another country at amity with Britain. What that should be it is for Lord Malmesbury, who represents British interests and British honour, and officially secures protection to British subjects abroad, to decide."
The whole question there put forward by Mr. Mather was British honour and British interests, and, taking that into consideration, he assessed the inquiry at 5,000 l. [The Earl of DERBY: No, no!] That, at least, was the construction which he put upon it, and which he contended it bore. It had been said that the sum named was exorbitant; but he remembered that some years ago a Mr. Churchill was at Constantinople, went out shooting, and was taken up as a trespasser by the proprietor of the land, was charged before the Cadi, and ordered to be bastinadoed. After that transaction England rose up. Here was a British subject grossly insulted by a Turkish Cadi, and there must be reparation. What did the Government do? In the first place they insisted on the Cadi's being dismissed. The brother of the Sultan was reprimanded for having defended the Cadi, and the Turkish Government was made to pay 4,000 l. to Mr. Churchill. Mr. Churchill got 4,000 l. for a slight bastinadoing on his feet; and this unfortunate gentleman, who had been nearly killed, was denied 5,000 l. The moment the matter resolved itself into a money affair it became a question of bargain, and as such was treated. The English Minister was set to work "to get what he could." It was thenceforth a race between the Tuscan Government and the noble Earl: it was a contest such as the Israelitish race were perhaps the most competent to engage in, and he must say that the noble Earl did not appear at all at home in the character, and did not play the part nearly so well as the Tuscan Government. Writing on the 9th of March to Mr. Scarlett the noble Earl said—
"The sum asked by Mr. Mather is exorbitant, but you will be able to judge what can be got. A pecuniary compensation is at least tangible. You must hold firm language on both subjects. I do not think that we should take loss than 1,000 l. If, however, you get the Tuscan Government to admit that some compensation is due, it will not be very difficult for us to fix the sum."
He did not think that it was fair, after
1026
Mr. Mather had repeatedly said that he did not wish to make it a money question, for the noble Earl to state that Mr. Mather considered the injury one that might be atoned for by money; and, as might have been anticipated, it had seriously injured him at Florence. The noble Earl still went on endeavouring to see what could be got, and, not succeeding very well with Florence, he appealed to Austria to assist him, but Austria, very wisely, refused to aid in putting the screw upon Tuscany. When the memorandum was placed before Tuscany, stating that they had brought the matter to a money consideration, and naming 5,000 l. as the sum proposed, the horror that was created in that Government was something indescribable, and at once they denied all responsibility, while at the same time they maintained their independence. He must say that the conduct of the Tuscan Government throughout had been most disgraceful. The noble Earl then should have taken every step to insist upon the responsibility of Tuscany, and he must do him the justice to say that he never once did abandon that point, although Mr. Scarlett, in a despatch laid upon the table that day, appeared to think that Tuscany was not responsible. The unfortunate bargaining still proceeded. On the 9th of April the noble Earl wrote to Mr. Scarlett, "You must, if possible, get 500 l." After that it seemed that Austria evinced some inclination to help Tuscany, and almost offered to pay the money for her. Of course, that could not possibly be recognised on the principle which we held to be correct, because, if so, we should have admitted, what Austria maintained, that in Tuscany her troops were in no way responsible to the Tuscan Government. The noble Earl, however, never lost sight of the bargain. He then wished to propose an arbitration, and at last he actually said he didn't much mind who paid, but, as before, he said, "Get the money; let it appear to come from the Tuscan Government, and try to get it before the present Tuscan Government is turned out." The noble Earl added that it would he awkward to take it from Austria, but that Austria might urge the arbitration, and so it might be obtained. Matters were in this state when, unfortunately, Mr. Scarlett fell ill, and Mr. Barron appeared upon the stage. Mr. Barron's first business was to send off a despatch with the glorious news that the question was settled, not by the payment

1027
of 5,000 l., as Mr. Mather had demanded, nor of 1,000 l. which the Government could not get, nor 500 l., which they consented to take, nor by the arbitration they had offered—a miserable thousand francesconi, or about 240 l. was all the money that could be got. But then there was something more. Two persons named Stratford, who, he believed, had been guilty of some grave offence, were thrown in to make the reparation complete. He did not suppose that the Government had been consulted on this arrangement; but certainly it did appear to him to be the most extraordinary that could well have been devised. Because A did an injury to B, reparation was made to B, by conferring a favour upon C and D, who had done an injury to A. Then came a letter from the Duke of Casigliano, who said that the money was not given in reparation of an injury done, not in acknowledgment of any wrong, but as a very kind piece of liberality on the part of the Grand Duke—as if he had given it to a beggar, who had no claim upon him. That letter was insulting in the extreme. He had now-gone through the more important part of the papers before the House; but the great and salient points arising out of this question were the independence of Tuscany, and the position in which our relations with that country were placed in consequence of its occupation by Austria. He maintained that as long as the present disgraceful condition of the Ducal and Papal States continued in Italy, as long as Tuscany and the Roman territory were occupied by foreign forces, so long should we be subjected to cases similar to the present. This was but one instance, only an illustration, of the great evils which might accrue. All negotiations between other Powers and the central Powers of Italy were, in consequence of this, in an unnatural position. Unfortunately, it had been the policy of Austria to encourage every kind of misgovernment in the Roman and Tuscan States, in order that they might contrast unfavourably with Lombardy. She had urged upon the Dukes of Parma, Modena, and Tuscany, as well as upon the Pope, to adopt a system hostile to all social improvement, and destructive of everything like civil and religious liberty. Nay, Austria had gone so far as to encourage those Powers to abandon what little good yet remained in their countries; and Tuscany, which under the laws of Leopold II. had been happy, was now threatened
1028
to have those laws abrogated, and to be driven back into that state of barbarism in which the Legations of Bologna, Ferrara, Forli, Ravenna, and the other ecclesiastical States, were at this moment. In that attempt Austria had been well supported, and had found a ready instrument in what was called "the clerical party" in those States. In consequence of the proceedings of that party, a state of affairs now existed in all those parts of Central Italy which would almost justify a general rising of the people, both against their sovereigns and the foreign allies of their sovereigns who at present occupied their territories, and such a rising might, perhaps, before long become inevitable. Under these circumstances, he maintained that it was the duty of the great Powers of Europe, and of England in particular, to urge upon the sovereigns of those countries such social ameliorations, such improvements in their government, as might at least reconcile to them the people whom they governed. If that were done, the necessity for the presence of Austrian troops to assist in enforcing these police regulations would no longer exist. Those troops, therefore, would be obliged to withdraw, and our relation with those countries would be placed in its natural and original position. Unless some step should be taken by the great Powers in that direction, he saw no end to the threatened anomalies that might arise, and to such cases as the one under consideration. He thought it extremely desirable, therefore, that they should do something in imitation of the course that was taken by the great Powers in 1834, when they impressed upon the Papal Government the necessity of social reform. Believing, therefore, though this event might at first sight appear a mere incidental occurrence, that justice would not be done unless the Austrian troops were removed from Tuscany, Parma, and Modena, he should conclude by moving—
"For an Address to Her Majesty for a Copy of the instructions to Sir Henry Bulwer, in which the nature of the Redress demanded in the case of Mr. Erskine Mather is stated."
The EARL of MALMESBURY: My Lords, I will not detain your Lordships by going into a detailed account of the circumstances of this case, because the noble Lord opposite, to whom I am obliged for bringing the question forward, and for giving me an opportunity of saying a few words upon it, has given an account, as near being correct as possible, of the circumstances of

1029
the accident and assault that Mr. Mather has suffered. When it first became my duty to consider the case, I looked upon that assault—as I always said it was, and have written more than once in these despatches—a brutal assault. I think there was no excuse whatever for it. It was the act of violence of a passionate man, acting without self-control, and having been excited to passion without any sufficient cause. Holding that to be the nature of the outrage, I naturally looked upon it with the same indignation that it excited in the breast of every Englishman to whom it became known. When the matter was first mentioned in this House by the noble Earl who was then Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Earl Granville), your Lordships will recollect the impression that the account made upon us; and I did not undervalue, as many persons have undertaken to say, the brutality of the outrage that was committed. But I cannot say that I go as far as many people have gone, and apparently the noble Lord lately at the head of Her Majesty's Government, in supposing that the assault, in its nature and details, was an assault upon this country, or, what is commonly called, a national insult and an outrage upon the honour of Great Britain. I beg your Lordships to consider what would be the consequences to this country and its people with regard to other nations, if we laid down as a rule that an Englishman who receives an affront or assault from any foreigner in a foreign country, is so identified with the national honour of Great Britain, that the moment he is struck, it is to be held that the national honour is also stricken. Supposing even this assault to have been of a fatal character—supposing a murder to have been committed on an English subject—a much more serious case than assault—what would be the consequences to this country if we were bound to consider ourselves nationally insulted, and called upon to revenge that insult with the whole dignity and strength of the Empire? I look upon the case to be this: An Englishman in a foreign country, who may be insulted and injured—as a foreigner may be insulted and injured in this country, or may be insulted and injured like the native of the foreign country in which he is living—a person so injured is entitled to the same privilege that he enjoys here, namely, to the protection of the laws of that country. If the laws are justly dispensed when he appeals to the tribunals of that coun-
1030
try, I don't think he has a right to ask for or expect more. I do not think the Foreign Office is justified in interfering in such a case until justice is publicly refused to the English subject by the tribunals that are open to the natives of that foreign country. My noble Friend opposite (Earl Granville) has departed from his official existence; but if, in alluding to the noble Earl, or anything that may have been done by him, I shall be mistaken, the noble Earl will be able to make a posthumous defence and to correct the error; but I do not scruple to tell him, that although I think his object was honourable and patriotic, and that he had in mind that successive offences had been committed on British subjects in Tuscany, and that it was time that those offences should be arrested, I feel my noble Friend was wrong in bringing the Foreign Office into action before the Tuscan authorities had closed their Courts to Mr. Mather, and before Mr. Mather had failed to establish his suit, and to obtain from the civil Courts of Tuscany that reparation to which he was undoubtedly entitled. On the 27th of February Her Majesty's late Government made way for the present Administration; and the position in which I found the case then was this: Mr. Mather had been, as I have said previously, injured and insulted by an Austrian officer, and he had more than one course which he might have followed to procure redress. Had he lived thirty years ago, I think he would have done as many of your Lordships would have done at the age of eighteen, with the opinions that then prevailed in this country and on the Continent, and have taken other measures than he did take. In those days it was not usual to appeal to the Secretary of State. An Englishman who was insulted would have settled the affair with his own hand, called the perpetrator of this outrage to account, and obliged him personally to make him an apology for the affront he gave him. I do not blame Mr. Mather for not adopting that course: our opinions have fortunately changed on those matters, and the progress of civilisation shows Englishmen that such a manner of settling differences is no longer practicable; and certainly would not be defensible in public opinion. That was the way in which gentlemen formerly, and even at a late period, sought reparation for an offence. I am glad that the practice of duelling is obliterated from our customs; but I should be sorry to think that another practice, iden-

1031
tified and going hand in hand with the custom of duelling, should he also at an end—I mean the practice, or rather the opinion, that it is not a compromise of dignity or honour on the part of a gentleman if he has insulted another to make an apology. I hope, because duelling is done away with, the idea is not entertained that apologies are never to he offered, or that when offered they are not worthy of acceptance. I think where an insult is not meant to he an insult—where it is not premeditated or intended—an ample, full, and gentlemanlike apology ought to be, generally speaking, sufficient to satisfy any man. A man's honour must always be in his own hands, and therefore I don't say that Mr. Mather was wrong in refusing to accept the frank and ample apology that was offered to him. It was offered through the Commander-in-Chief, who proposed to send Lieutenant Forsthuber, with another officer who spoke English, to Mr. Mather, and if Mr. Mather said he had meant no offence to the Austrian officer, the officer was ready to make any apology Mr. Mather might insist on. Mr. Mather refused that offer; I don't say he was wrong—I am only stating the position in which he found the case—he would not take reparation by his own hand, and he refused to receive an apology. He went further—he positively refused to go into a civil Court, and the opinion of his father from the beginning seems to have been that, because his son was insulted, it was a national insult. But in my interviews with Mr. Mather, I never would assent to that proposition, but observed throughout that the impression was in Mr. Mather's mind that this was a national insult, to be avenged by the Secretary of State to Her Majesty. Five days after I came into office, Mr. Mather—not invited, as the noble Baron has said, by me—not in any way required by me to come to the Foreign Office, came on his own accord, as he said, to consult me on this business. He spoke to me in the sense I have tried to describe; he sought to make it a national insult; but I refused to recognise it as such. I said the national honour was in my hands, and was no business of his, except so far as any Englishman must be concerned for the honour of his country. I said that it appeared to me that the question was divided into two heads: first, I believed it to be most essential that Her Majesty's subjects in Tuscany should hereafter be protected by a public admission of
1032
the responsibility of the Tuscan Government; and that, in the next place, I thought that Mr. Mather ought to endeavour to obtain reparation for himself. Reparation was the word used throughout; and I asked him what he considered was reparation? He said he left it to me to say what the reparation should be. I told him I thought he should be treated in Tuscany as a Tuscan should be treated whilst he was in England—that if a Tuscan in England were grossly assaulted he would appeal to a court of justice for damages—that he had a right also to have damages paid to him—and that if he liked I would use all the influence of my position to obtain those damages as reparation for the injuries that had been inflicted upon him. Mr. Mather did not object to that course, but asked me for two days to consider and consult with his friends. He asked me how much the damages should be; and I said as he was to consult with his friends, he should consult with them on that point also. I am told I was wrong in not stating the sum. I think I was not wrong. A man who goes into a court of justice generally mentions the sum he claims, and the jury says whether it is too large or not. Therefore, I don't think I departed from the course that is generally taken in analogous cases, that is, in cases where personal injury is suffered, keeping entirely separate the much more important question of the responsibility of the Government of Tuscany for the protection of Her Majesty's subjects in that country. I will not notice in this House what has been said of me in the public prints; but I hope I may be allowed—even although it may be somewhat out of order—to allude to what has been said in "another place." A noble Lord—no less a man than Her Majesty's late Prime Minister—has changed me three times in his speech with a great omission on first starting in this case. He dwelt upon it, and said I had omitted to consult the Queen's Advocate. That indeed would have been a great omission on my part, if it were one that I could have avoided; but do you know why I did not send for him to consult with him? Because there was no Queen's Advocate to consult. Your Lordships will bear in mind that the late Government resigned on the 20th of February, and that a week elapsed from the 20th to the 27th of February, during which they merely held office until their successors had been appointed. The administrative functions had ceased; but it

1033
would appear that their creative functions had not ceased, for between these two dates, while the Government was on its death-bed, they evinced their gratitude to some of the able and distinguished men for their services rendered them during their lifetime, by rewarding them as far as lay in their power. Among others, was that able and highly-gifted gentleman the late Queen's Advocate General; and on the day of the funeral of the late Government, and on the day before the funeral of the late Sir H. Jenner Fust, he was appointed—
LORD CAMPBELL: Who is appointed by the Archbishop of Canterbury, and the appointment, therefore, in no way rested with Her Majesty's Ministers.
The EARL of MALMESBURY: The noble Lord is perfectly correct; but whether he was appointed by the Government or the Archbishop of Canterbury, I have no doubt he was recommended to the notice of the Archbishop, and I do not find fault with it, for I think it was a well-merited promotion; but all I say was, that Lord John Russell knew it. Well, such being the case, the Queen's Advocate, called upon to fill a high judicial office, is not of course appointed without consideration; and in the present instance the Government was for some days without the assistance of this officer, in consequence of the period necessary for his induction before he could attend at the Foreign Office, And now, my Lords, let me say a few words in reference to the question, from which of the two Governments—the Government of Austria or the Government of Tuscany—redress was to be asked? A noble Lord, occupying no less a position than that of a late First Minister of the Crown, and another noble Lord almost equally distinguished, have thought proper to blame me because I sought redress from the Government of Tuscany instead of that of Austria. I have told your Lordships before that we were left without the advice of the Queen's Advocate, that we had nothing but our own judgment and common sense to rely upon; but, my Lords, it seemed both just and reasonable that we should apply to the Tuscan Government and not to the Austrian, and that it was of the highest political consequence that we should not recognise the Austrian on this occasion, hut should adopt a course equivalent to a denial of the supremacy of Austria over Tuscany—and we acted on that judgment without doubt or hesitation;
1034
and my astonishment was great, indeed, when I found that a course adopted with such a view had been blamed by the noble Lord (Lord John Russell) in another place. In 1849, when the same army occupied Tuscany, there were perpetrated in Leghorn far greater acts of violence towards British subjects than that which now forms the subject of the discussion. It is true, my Lords, that in that case the outrages were against British property; but an outrage on British property equally affects the national honour. Her Majesty's Government for the time being, acting doubtless on the best principles of common sense, and having consulted the Queen's Advocate, took the course which appeared to them most expedient; and you may judge my astonishment, my Lords, at the strictures pronounced on me when I read the following letters from the noble Lord who then conducted the Foreign Affairs of this country. [The noble Earl then read extracts from despatches written by Viscount Palmerston to Sir George Hamilton, and to Lord Ponsonby, dated respectively August the 8th, 1849, and April 30th, 1850, in which the noble Viscount referred to the losses sustained by British subjects in consequence of the entrance of Austrian troops into Tuscany, and which he required to have made good, observing that inasmuch as the losses complained of were occasioned by a body of troops that had entered Tuscany, having been called in at the express desire of the Grand Duke, and the losses not having been occasioned by the necessary operations of war, Her Majesty's Government must consider the Tuscan Government responsible for them. And on the 30th of April, in the following year, Lord Palmerston, writing to Lord Ponsonsonby, said that his Excellency was to state to Prince Schwarzenberg that as these losses had not been occasioned by the necessary operations of war, they must hold the Tuscan Government responsible.] It is very satisfactory to me to know that I followed exactly the same course as that taken by my predecessors in office; and I cannot, of course, attribute to the noble Lord lately at the head of the Government anything but a forgetfulness of the acts of his own Government, when he reprimanded me—and so publicly reprimanded me—for having sought redress from Tuscany instead of from Austria, under analogous circumstances. I am not aware that the noble Lord opposite (Lord Beaumont) has found fault with me for anything, except

1035
that I did not name the sum to which Mr. Mather was entitled as compensation, and that I did not demand a larger sum than that which was awarded to him. Now I am sure that none of your Lordships would, for the sum of 5,000 l., endure the pains and dangers to which Mr. Mather was subjected; hut we cannot in that way judge of the amount of the compensation to he awarded, or the result of an action for damages in a court of law. Your Lordships will recollect that in such matters we must he governed by the customs of the country, and what is usually awarded in similar cases, and you will also remember the difference between the value of money in this country and in a foreign State. But I have been accused by the late Prime Minister of dishonouring Mr. Mather. The noble Lord accused me of taking away the character and the independence of an honourable gentleman by the interference of "Her Majesty's Go-Government." There is no ground whatever for such an assertion. We have in this country done away with dew and it is the commonest thing in the world for men of the highest rank to go into a court for an assault—and indeed actions in a pourt of law are now the only means of reparation; and if a man in such a case sues for damages, he is not necessarily supposed to he influenced by a desire to obtain money, but by a wish to obtain a recognition that reparation is due. As regards the amount that should he fixed, it is difficult to estimate that in any case. In Dublin a trial has recently taken place, in which a widow had, under the Act of the noble Lord opposite (Lord Campbell's Act), sued a steamboat company for damages for the death of her husband, who had been drowned in crossing from one steamboat to another. Your Lordships will recollect that this was a case of death—in Mr. Mather's case it was a loss of blood. Damages were given of 500 l., and costs; and the Chief Justice, in reference to the offer of this sum by the defendants, had said, "It was an offer fair and becoming, and such as he should have expected from an influential company." Now if the Chief Justice used these words in reference to an offer of compensation for death, it surely could not be said that the compensation demanded in Mr. Mather's case was unbecoming of the Government. But the noble Lord (Lord Beaumont) had altogether mistaken this case. I was not asking for damages to compensate the injured honour of England, for I
1036
never admitted that the honour of England has been touched. I have always asserted that Mr. Mather, as an individual Englishman, had a right to personal, but not to national damages—to such damages as he would have obtained in his own country. I may have been mistaken in my views, but I trust I shall not be misrepresented in the course I took, and the object I had in mind. And now, my Lords, I will candidly avow that in one part of this transaction I have been to blame. On a Saturday (the 22nd) I received what I believed to be the final despatch, settling the question not satisfactorily to me, as I stated to Sir Henry Bulwer, supposing, as I did, that Mr. Scarlett had departed from his instructions, only with regard to the amount of money to be paid, but had not waved the principle of the responsibility of the Tuscan Government. Afterwards, other despatches arrived, one of which contained the important letter from the Duke of Casigliano, to which reference has so often been made. I, in the meanwhile, had sent off a despatch to Sir Henry Bulwer, without having examined these last despatches. I take to myself blame for this. My Lords, nobody but one who has filled the office, can have any idea of the duties which devolve on a Secretary of State. Independently of the duties of his office, he has other duties to perform—he has to attend in his place in Parliament, he has to attend the councils of the Cabinet and of Her Majesty—and he has to receive all kinds of persons on subjects connected with his office. My Lords, I will freely admit that I did not open these despatches received on Saturday until the following Monday. It will, however, be some excuse for me when I state, as a proof of the amount of business to be transacted by a Foreign Secretary, that last year 31,000 despatches, exclusive of inclosures, went in and out of the Foreign Office. My Lords, I do not wish to exculpate myself from any part I have taken in this affair, except as to not having opened these despatches from Saturday till Monday; and having said this much, I will add that by far the most painful part of my duty which I have had to discharge, was with reference to a gentleman acting under my instructions—a gentleman who had always given satisfaction to the Governments under which he served, but who thought right to deviate from my instructions in this instance. My instructions to Mr. Scarlett were three in number. The first and the most important was, that

1037
he should enforce on the Tuscan Government the necessity of affording protection to Her Majesty's subjects in their courts of justice and otherwise; secondly, that for the personal injury inflicted on Mr. Mather he should demand 500 l., and accept no less; and, thirdly—and this instruction like the others was plainly stated, and mainly depended on his success in reference to the other two—that if he failed in obtaining what he was thereby instructed to demand, he should proceed no further in the matter, but wait until Sir Henry Bulwer arrived in Florence. I cannot understand why Mr. Scarlett, finding his difficulties increasing, did not wait the arrival of that distinguished diplomatist. I cannot say what Sir Henry Bulwer might have done had he arrived before the affair had been concluded; but, my Lords, I must say I deeply regret that Mr. Scarlett committed the diplomatic error of not awaiting the arrival of that able Minister before he prematurely closed his negotiation.
LORD CAMPBELLcomplained that the conduct of Mr. Scarlett had been made the subject of very hard remarks; and even base and absurd suggestions had been thrown out that he had been influenced in accepting the compensation by the fear of losing his salary. Mr. Scarlett was a gentleman of great experience as a diplomatist, having begun his diplomatic career in Constantinople, many years since, under Sir Stratford Canning, and his conduct had earned the approbation of the Secretaries of State for Foreign Affairs under whom he had served—the Earl of Aberdeen, Viscount Palmerston, and Earl Granville. It, appeared to him that the noble Earl (the Earl of Malmesbury) had not taken a correct view of the case, in saying that the remedy to he sought in the case was the ordinary remedy to be obtained in the Courts of Law. He differed from the noble Earl on that point, and thought that the matter was one in which the Government was certainly bound to interfere; and he regretted that it had not been arranged as was proposed in the first instance, by an accommodation and apology. Mr. Scarlett sent two distinguished gentlemen to Mr. Mather with that object, and at that time there might have been an honourable accommodation; and to show what the feeling of the Austrian Government was, the officer was immediately placed under arrest. Mr. Mather declined in the most emphatic manner to receive an apo-
1038
logy from the officer or from the whole Austrian army, if it was tendered. What he demanded was justice and a proper investigation, and accordingly an investigation did take place, and it was admitted on all hands that it was fairly conducted; in England it could not have been done more fairly or more justly. It was then agreed between the Foreign Office and Mr. Mather that there should be pecuniary compensation. In judging of the final result their Lordships must take into account the large discretion left in the hands of Mr. Scarlett, who was told to get an annuity, without being told whether it was to amount to 5l. or 100 l. a year, or what Mr. Mather would have got from a jury in England—a very doubtful matter. Their Lordships would find nothing required by the instructions but payment of a plain, naked sum of money; and if that sum wore paid, that was all that was required. At page 60 of the despatches the following passage occurred in the note which was to be presented by Mr. Scarlett to the Tuscan Government:—
"It now becomes necessary for Her Majesty's Government to point out in what that reparation should consist, and it may facilitate the settlement of this question on the part of the Tuscan Government if they are informed that the father of Mr. Mather (who is a minor) is himself inclined to consider that the injury done to his son may be atoned for by a pecuniary payment on the part of the Tuscan Government. On this point the undersigned is instructed to state"—
(This was a note written in the Foreign Office, which was to be only copied at Florence)—
—"to the Duke of Casigliano that Her Majesty's Principal Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs having heard that Mr. Mather's father, subsequently to that gentleman's return to England from visiting his son at Florence, the representations which he had to make upon the subject of the injury done to his son, requested him to put in writing the nature of the reparation which he demanded; and Her Majesty's Secretary of State shortly afterwards received from Mr. Mather's father a statement that he would be satisfied if a sum of 5,000 l. was paid to his son. Her Majesty's Government, however, consider that sum to be greater than they ought to demand of the Tuscan Government to pay."
In his (Lord Campbell's) opinion it would have been just as well for the noble Lord the Secretary for Foreign Affairs not to have mentioned any exorbitant demand, and called it exorbitant, but to have himself named the sum which ought to have been given. The note proceeded—
"The undersigned is, therefore, instructed to state to the Duke of Casigliano that Her Ma-

1039
jesty's Government expect and require that a sum proportionate to the sufferings and indignity inflicted on Mr. Mather, jun., should be paid to his father as compensation for the outrage inflicted on his son."
All the Tuscan Government were called upon to do was to pay down a sum of money, and such a sum as they thought reasonable compensation. The noble Earl the Secretary for Foreign Affairs, when he complained that Mr. Scarlett had concluded the matter before Sir Henry Bulwer's arrival, has surely forgotten his own despatch of the 27th of April, which was in these words:—
"Sir, Henry Bulwer will start to-morrow for Florence. Notwithstanding the crisis you describe as going on in the Tuscan Court, I am still in hopes that you will settle the Mather compensation by arbitration or otherwise before he arrives, and I see no reason why you should not push it on before the present Government is turned out. It appears to me that the next would be still more intractable."
The EARL of DERBY: That is the Tuscan Government.
LORD CAMPBELLwas aware that the allusion was to changes in the Tuscan Government. The despatch proceeded:—
"Lord Westmoreland has sent me an offer from Count Buol to refer the case of compensation to Mr. Mather to the Emperor, if we fail in Tuscany, where he states that Austria has given advice in favour of our claim. I am, however, unwilling to accept Count Buol's proposal further than to ask him to give his good offices privately to us, and recommend such payment to Mr. Mather as an English court of justice would allow. He and the Tuscan Government must settle the question of which is to be the loser between them; but we who have never treated the matter officially with Austria, but insisted on the responsibility of Tuscany, as an independent State, cannot accept the money from Austria for Tuscany."
The noble Earl, on the 21st, said to Mr. Scarlett, "Wait for Sir H. Bulwer;" and on the 27th, "Do not wait, come to an accommodation speedily, before there is a change of Government, which will make it more difficult to deal with those going in than with those going out." That despatch of the 27th of April would reach Florence on the 4th or 5th of May, and it was under the urgency of this despatch that the accommodation actually took place on the 10th and 11th of May. From the tenor of that despatch might not Mr. Scarlett reasonably suppose that the noble Earl was willing he should make large concessions for the purpose of obtaining a settlement, before the accession of the new Government and before Sir H. Bulwer arrived? As he understood, there
1040
were three charges against Mr. Scarlett: first, that he took less than 500 l.; secondly, that he surrendered the principle of responsibility on the part of the Tuscan Government; and, thirdly, that he mixed up the case of the Stratfords with that of Mr. Mather. With regard to the first, as to taking less than 500 l., he thought he had shown their Lordships that the noble Earl himself was urgent for an immediate accommodation, and that a very large discretion had been left with Mr. Scarlett. Allusions had been made to the compensation which for such an injury would have been awarded by a jury in this country. From his long experience he could say that nothing was more uncertain than the estimates arrived at by a jury where there was no pecuniary principle to guide them. A jury in this country might have given 5,000 l., and might have given only 50 l. The process was said to be this: there were twelve men in a box—they differed; each put down a sum on a bit of paper; they were all handed in and added up, and then divided by twelve: that was the amount of the damages. He really thought no blame could attach to Mr. Scarlett for taking less than 500 l. If the 500 l. had been simply paid, the noble Earl would not have disavowed the transaction; but the noble Lord did disavow it, on the ground that there had been a surrender of Tuscan responsibility. The noble Earl had referred to the letter of the 10th of May, from the Duke of Casigliano: and if that letter had been acquiesced in, the Tuscan responsibility would have been renounced. But the noble Earl had entirely forgotten the contents of Mr. Scarlett's letter of the 11th, in which, instead of acquiescing in the Duke of Casigliano's letter, he strongly protested against it, and reasserted all that had been contained in previous despatches with respect to the responsibility of the Tuscan Government. He thought, therefore, the noble Earl had not read this despatch before making the disavowal. The third point was, the mixing up the case of the Stratfords with that of Mr. Mather. He (Lord Campbell) happened himself to know a good deal of the affair of the Stratfords. He was at Florence at the time, and he had no hesitation in saying it was a matter of infinitely greater national importance than the case of Mr. Mather. These persons were two sons of the late Earl of Aldborough, against whom a charge had been brought; they ought to have been tried according to Tuscan law

1041
and the law of nations. How were they tried? What he was going to mention was spoken of as a mere irregularity! They were brought to trial before an Austrian court-martial. The Austrians had a large force in Florence, and another force in Leghorn; and they chose to bring these two British subjects to trial before a court-martial, not according to Tuscan law, or any law but that which was called martial law, which was no law at all. That was clearly contrary to the law of nations, and gave this country just cause of remonstrance. There would have been just cause of war had redress been refused. What was the pretext? That two years before, they had declared Leghorn in a state of siege. Entire tranquility, however, prevailed when those two British subjects were brought to trial. A ship of war was placed by Lord Palmerston under the control of Mr. Scarlett, that he might give effect to his remonstrances; but in spite of such remonstrances, those two British subjects were subjected to trial by court-martial, and sentenced to be shot. Was that what was called an irregularity? The sentence was not carried into execution; but they were kept in rigorous imprisonment. Was it not a matter of considerable importance that this matter should be finally adjusted? In that view Mr. Scarlett concurred, and on the 6th of May he wrote to the Duke of Casigliano:—
"I must remind you that, in order to put an end to that difficulty, the Government of Her Majesty, animated by the most friendly sentiments towards Tuscany, had already offered, as in the Mather affair, to set aside entirely the discussion of principle. Why, then, do you prefer to leave open the wound which both wisdom and good faith appear at present to supply you with such opportune means of healing?"
On the following day the Duke agreed that the Stratfords should be delivered up without in the slightest degree mixing it with the Mather transaction, which was not closed till the 10th—four days afterwards. Under the instructions he had received, Mr. Scarlett might well have supposed himself justified in what he did; and he had a confident expectation that he would still be honoured by being employed in the service of his country.
The EARL of ABERDEEN: My Lords, it is satisfactory, in a review of this transaction, to perceive that there is really no national difference or question at issue. From the very first moment in which it was clearly ascertained that the violence and outrage committed against this gentle-
1042
man were entirely unpremeditated and committed in ignorance, then—however injurious and serious to the individual—the country must perceive, no insult having been intended, that nations, like individuals, must act upon the rule of not regarding as an insult that which was not intended as such. I think I am disposed to agree so far with the noble and learned Lord who has just sat down, that in the redress to be sought for this injury—for, undoubtedly, it is a very great injury to the individual—of that there can be no doubt—I am inclined to agree with him that reparation might have been sought from either party, cither from Tuscany or Austria; and I should say preferably from Austria, because it is very well to say that you wish to insist on the independence of Tuscany—but that does not alter the nature of the existing facts. Tuscany, in so far as the existence of the Austrian army is concerned, was independent, and you might exact your redress from Tuscany—you might receive all the money you chose to demand from Tuscany—but you could not make Tuscany independent of the Austrian forces, in so far as they were excluded by treaty from Tuscan jurisdiction. The instance stated by the noble Earl opposite of some compensation received at Leghorn, in 1849, is proof that what I am saying is now confirmed; for the treaty by which the Austrian forces were exempt from Tuscan jurisdiction was, I believe, signed in 1850, and therefore the position of that army was different in 1850 from that in 1849, when it was only an auxiliary force under Tuscan jurisdiction. But this is not a new case at all; for we have seen many armies of occupation in different countries precisely in the same situation as the Austrian army is now in Tuscany. What was the case of the French occupation of Spain in 1822, under the Due D'Angouleme? The French army was by treaty exempted from all authority of the Spanish tribunals. We did not pretend to deny that Spain was independent during all that time. Not at all. We carried on our usual transactions with that Government, and should have obtained redress from Spain, when sought on good grounds; but wherever the French army was concerned, by treaty Spain was unable to execute any act of jurisdiction. The same in the occupation of France by the Allied Powers. Although we entered France as conquerors, we remained under a treaty with Louis XVIII.; but still the

1043
armies were perfectly exempted from French jurisdiction during that time. Still France was considered independent, and we carried on all our transactions with France in other respects precisely as if that force had not Been in the country. I see it stated in the papers which have been laid on your Lordships' table that the illustrious Duke who was commander of the British army in Portugal, professed to make the British army amenable to Portuguese tribunals. Of course I must take that declaration as stating the facts of the case. At the same time I should have imagined, if precisely the same transaction as this had occurred in the streets of Lisbon, if an English officer at the head of his regiment, marching through the streets of Lisbon, had cut down a German or a Russian, either with or without reason, I should not have thought the noble Duke would have done other than brought that officer to a court-martial, and not delivered him to the Portuguese authorities. That, I should have imagined, would have been the course pursued. But to prove that such a relation between an occupying force and the Government of the country is by no means exceptional in Tuscany, I need only observe, it has existed over and over again, and it does not, except so far as the occupying force is concerned, affect the independence of the country in its relation with all other Powers. And for that reason I say'—practically, this Austrian army being independent of Tuscany—it seems the natural and reasonable course to pursue to address that Power which was independent of Tuscany; and the Austrian authorities appear to have been well disposed to meet the demand, although they justified their officer. It appears there was a military court of inquiry, which exculpated the officer who committed this outrage. Into that Austrian code I will not enter. It appears to us most unreasonable and most barbarous that a man with arms in his hand should resent what he conceives to be an insult on the spot, even to the destruction of life on the part of the person offering it. I presume, in this country, if any unarmed man was to hold his fist in the face of an armed man at the head of his regiment, probably the officer would not touch him, although he might hand him over to the police for correction and punishment;—but the notion of resenting on the spot that which is imagined to be an insult is carried not only in the Austrian, but in the Prussian army to an ex-
1044
tent which is to us quite incomprehensible. Be that as it may, we cannot blame the officer who acts on the understanding of such a code and such regulations; and in this case Marshal Radetzky seems to think, from the result of the inquiry, that the officer was justified in the course pursued. But even if he were justified, that would not diminish the injury inflicted on a man admitted to be innocent; because the Austrian authorities all agree that there was no intention on the part of this young man to commit any insult at all, or any offence. Therefore, even if the officer was justified, reparation was due for the injury sustained by this individual. They one and all seem disposed to take that view of the question, as it is the only view to take of it, for, after that ample apology on the part of Prince Schwarzenberg and Prince Lichtenstein, the nation has nothing to demand. The individual still remains to be satisfied; and Mr. Mather, having rejected the notion of any apology, either from the officer who committed the injury or the whole Austrian army, looked for a compensation of some other description. The noble Earl did not proceed in quite the usual way. When the noble Earl tells us that he had no Queen's Advocate to confer with, I must say that I think if he had made any request to Sir John Dodson, that gentleman would have willingly given him the benefit of his opinion. I should have thought, for his own satisfaction, that would have been the proper course to pursue. Had the Queen's Advocate, or some other person entitled to give an opinion, fixed a sum which, according to his notions, was just to have demanded, then the noble Earl would have been secure in adhering to that sum. This would have been the better course to have pursued; instead of first going to Mr. Mather, and asking him to fix a sum, which, when he did fix, the noble Earl thought it exorbitant; and thus he had no certainty to proceed upon. The noble Earl was driven from one amount to another, not having a legal authority upon which he could stand, and he ended by accepting—I do not say improperly—the sum offered by the Tuscan Government. I do not say that the sum fixed by the Tuscan Government was improper; and I think that Mr. Scarlett was right when he said, that had the Tuscan courts been open to him, very probably he would not have received more. But as to the question of independence, I say, if you assert and maintain the responsibility of Tuscany for all acts committed

1045
within its territory, but entirely beyond the control of the Tuscan Government, that although you may exact a reparation, and may, if you please, withdraw our Minister, and order reprisals—as appears to be threatened in one of the despatches that future measures will be taken—and although you may obtain whatever you demand, you will not obtain an acknowledgment from the Tuscan Government that they are responsible. You cannot exact from them that condition—you cannot make them say that which is not the case, namely, that they are independent of the Austrian army occupying their territories; and that, I say, is the whole case. The Austrian army in Tuscany is de facto independent of Tuscany. For military offences they are only responsible to their own military authorities. They are in the position in which the British army stood in France, in which the French army stood in Spain, and which I had always heretofore believed the British army stood in Portugal. However, I admit I do not undervalue the importance of holding Tuscany responsible for acts committed upon her territory. The noble and learned Lord said that application should be made either to Tuscany or to Austria, or to both. I am disposed to think that not only would it have been more just and consistent with sound reason, but that you would have succeeded, if, instead of appealing to Tuscany, who felt herself quite innocent, and quite incapable of exacting reparation for the offence, you had demanded reparation from Austria. I think if this course had been pursued, that the whole affair would have been settled in a very short time, and that without any embarrassment. I should be sorry to blame the noble Earl for the course which he has pursued, although I do not think it the most judicious or the most successful. But what is the state of the matter? That is a most important question. We are told that the proceedings of Mr. Scarlett, after the settlement has taken place, are now to be disavowed. The question is to be reopened. I presume that it is on the notion that Mr. Scarlett abandoned the question of the responsibility of the Tuscan Government, that the question is to be reopened. It cannot be the amount of the compensation, because that was accepted. Well, then, how will you proceed? The noble Lord (Lord Beaumont) has moved for the instructions given to Sir H. Bulwer; but I hope the noble Earl will object to the pro-
1046
duction of any such document. The question is now, however, beset with new difficulties, which it was not before, and which it would not have been, if the course which I suggest had been pursued. The noble Earl must either now insist upon additional reparation—which I presume he will not do, having already accepted a fixed sum—or he must insist on Tuscany acknowledging its responsibility, and that the sum so due is properly and fairly demanded. You may exact what conditions you please, but you will never convince them that such is the case. They will retain their own sense of what is just. The noble Baron near me (Lord Beaumont) has taken this opportunity of entering upon the state of Italy. Nobody can more regret than I do the occupation of the Italian territories by foreign troops. I shall be very much delighted when they shall be recalled, and recalled with safety. But I must say that the noble Lord has made a most singular statement with regard to Austria in occupying these States. He says that Austria encourages all those Governments on which it has influence to commit outrages and acts of shocking injustice, in order that she may have the credit of her own provinces being well governed in comparison. That would be a system of Jesuitism which I have never heard surpassed. I think there is something wildly and perfectly absurd in such a proposition. I think it impossible that any Government in its senses could resort to such a policy. As to the occupation of the Tuscan territory by the Austrians, or of the Roman territory by the French—I do not know on what conditions the French force occupy Rome—
LORD BEAUMONT: Rome is in a state of siege.
The EARL of ABERDEEN: Yes, and the French army are therefore independent of the Roman tribunals; and in this case I do not know that we can fairly compare them with the Austrian forces. As I said before, I do not wish to blame the course pursued by the noble Earl. It appears to me, however, that it was a wrong one that was adopted at first. I do not know that it is now possible to apply to Austria; but I cannot help thinking that had this course been adopted at first, the matter might have been speedily and satisfactorily settled. I only hope that in any instructions the noble Earl may give to Sir H. Bulwer, he will not seek for impossibilities, but that he will be satisfied with that which it is in the power of Austria or of Tuscany to grant.
EARL GRANVILLEthought that, from the part which had been taken by the late Government in the correspondence which was the subject of discussion, it would not be fair or respectful on his part to the House if he were to remain perfectly silent; he did not, however, think it would be necessary for him to enter upon any detailed defence of the course which they had pursued, inasmuch as ample justice had been done them during the course of the debate. The noble Lord who introduced the Motion, and the noble Earl who last addressed their Lordships, had referred to the occupation of two Italian States by two distinct foreign armies. It was quite useless to argue that such an occupation, if it were to be continued, would be a very undesirable and anomalous state of things. There had been other armies of occupation for particular purposes—as, for instance, the English army in Portugal, the French army of occupation in Spain, and the army of the Allies in France—but all those occupations were merely for temporary purposes, and when those purposes were accomplished, the armies retired from the territories which they had occupied. There was also another occupation—the occupation of Algiers, which, from a temporary occupation, became permanent; but that could scarcely be considered an instance in point, because there were peculiar circumstances attendant upon that case. He was not one of those who had any very strong objection to the occupation of Algeria; but that was a very different thing from a permanent occupation, by Austria and France, of two independent Italian States. He thought, that as Her Majesty's Government were on very good terms both with Austria and France, it would not be very unreasonable to suggest that Her Majesty's Ministers might require some friendly explanation from the Governments of those two countries with respect to their intentions; and, as the Government of this country could not be supposed to have any selfish interest whatever with regard to the affairs of Italy, and could only be actuated by a desire to promote the prosperity of Italy and the general interests of Europe, very possibly the mediation of Her Majesty's Government might be accepted, and terms might be arranged upon which both France and Austria might be induced to withdraw their troops from Italy. With regard to the Mather correspondence, the discussion
1048
which had taken place to-night had been very agreeable to his feelings, and relieved him from the necessity of going into any part of the case subsequently to the retirement from office of the late Government; but he was anxious to make a few observations, with the view of vindicating the late Government from certain reflexions which had been made upon their mode of commencing this correspondence. The noble Earl the Secretary for Foreign Affairs, slightly transgressing the rule, De mortuis nil nisi bonum, had charged the late Government with being over hasty and impatient in the outset in demanding reparation for Mr. Mather. He (Earl Granville) thought, however, he could show that Her Majesty's late Government had not been too hasty in the steps they had taken. The nature of the outrage had been so often described, that it was unnecessary he should go into the details; but it had appeared to him that when in Tuscany—where he was sorry to say a number of cases of injury to British subjects had lately occurred without much redress being obtained from the Tuscan Government—they found an individual, personally inoffensive, like Mr. Mather (as was, he thought, shown by all the evidence), assaulted by a military officer performing military duty for the Grand Duke of Tuscany, the case was one demanding reparation. Upon receiving the statement which was furnished to him by Mr. Mather's family, he (Earl Granville) wrote to Mr. Scarlett, stating the particulars of the case as they had been communicated to Her Majesty's Government, and instructing him generally, if this statement should prove to be true, to demand reparation for the outrage. One point which had been raised during the debate was, whether it was right to make that application to the Tuscan instead of to the Austrian Government. The noble Earl (the Earl of Aberdeen), whose opinion was justly entitled to great weight, had stated that, in his view, the preferable course would have been to apply for redress to the Austrian Government. He (Earl Granville) did not concur in that opinion. It appeared to him that it would have been a positive insult to the Sovereign of an independent State to have entirely passed him over when asking redress for an outrage which occurred in the capital of his own State. He thought such a course would have pointed out to the world, unnecessarily and gratuitously, the dependent position of the Grand Duke of Tus-

1049
cany. He must say, with regard to the precedent which had been alluded to by the noble Earl opposite, that if it was right to demand from the Tuscan Government reparation for the sacking of the stores when the Austrians were actually performing military operations in Leghorn, he could not conceive that it was not right to go to the Tuscan Government, in a case of mere chance-medley in the street, when a British subject was injured. He thought the treaty of 1850, which had been referred to, rather strengthened his case. He certainly knew, though not officially, that such a treaty had been concluded. [The Earl of MALMESBURY: A secret treaty?] No; the treaty was published in the Moniteur; but the existence of a secret clause, providing that Austrian officers should not be amenable to the Tuscan civil tribunals, was not made known to the British Government until long after the late Administration had resigned their offices: so far, therefore, from its being a rule that occupying armies should not be subject to the civil tribunals of the country occupied, the Austrians had thought it necessary to introduce a special secret clause into their treaty. He had been informed, on excellent authority, that the French army, with regard to crimes affecting civilians, were amenable either to the civil or the military tribunals; and he was informed, on the same authority, that this case was one of those which, under the French law, might have been brought before either tribunal. This circumstance he adduced as justifying Her Majesty's late Government in applying to the Tuscan Government. Fault had been found with the despatch which he (Earl Granville) wrote to Lord Westmoreland, giving an account of this affair, on the ground that it was somewhat unintelligible; but the noble Lord who made this objection did not seem to have understood the purpose of the despatch. He (Earl Granville) guarded himself in that despatch from the notion that Lord Westmoreland had any instructions to act in the matter, because he was anxious not to mix up the question of double responsibility before it was absolutely necessary; but Her Majesty's Government thought it advisable Lord Westmoreland should know that it was their opinion that if obstructions were put in the way of obtaining the redress which they thought due to a British subject, they would demand reparation from the Government of Austria; and it was
1050
very satisfactory to him (Earl Granville) to have been borne out in that view by such an authority as the Lord Chief Justice, whose opinion was that both Governments might justly be held liable. He (Earl Granville) now came to another point which had not been mentioned during this discussion, but which had been raised elsewhere. It had been objected to his conduct that he had instructed Mr. Scarlett to demand reparation at once, without inquiring more narrowly into the facts, and without consulting the Queen's Advocate. The course he (Earl Granville) took was this—he wrote to Mr. Scarlett, instructing him, if he found the facts were as they had been represented, to make a general demand for reparation; because if he had directed Mr. Scarlett merely to inquire into the facts, before those facts could have been laid before the Queen's Advocate, and further instructions could have been sent out to Mr. Scarlett, nearly a month must have elapsed. He certainly did not think, under the circumstances of the outrage, that the public of this country, or Englishmen residing in foreign States, would have been very well satisfied if so long an interval had been allowed to elapse before a representation was made to the Tuscan Government. As to his not having consulted the Queen's Advocate, it was clear that he (Earl Granville) had no facts to lay before that official. He (Earl Granville) was certainly in possession of an ex-parte statement; but he believed it was contrary to all usage to lay ex-parte statements before the Queen's Advocate, in order to obtain from him a legal opinion. Having had the advantage of serving as Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs for about two years under his predecessor in office (Viscount Palmerston), who was certainly more intimately acquainted with all the details of every department of the Office than perhaps any one else, and who was therefore more independent of extraneous assistance, he had remarked that in nearly every ease that noble Lord took the opinion of a legal adviser; and he would not have been so presumptuous as to have imagined that he (Earl Granville) could have gone on without such assistance; but he thought that during the two years' experience to which he had referred, he had learned what was the proper time for submitting such matters to the Queen's Advocate. He must say he thought there was some inconvenience in referring in that House to debates which occurred in ano-

1051
ther place, as there was great difficulty in insuring an exact representation of what had really fallen from Members of the other House; and a noble Lord who had alluded to the statements of Lord John Russell, with regard to the outrage itself, and to the liability of Austria, had—though he was sure most unintentionally—somewhat misrepresented the opinions of his noble Friend. He (Earl Granville) might state that he had taken the opportunity of consulting on this subject with that distinguished gentleman, Sir John Dodson, who was no longer a Government officer, having been promoted to a high judicial position; but he had the authority of that eminent individual for stating that in his opinion the late Government were right in representing the ease as they heard it to Mr. Scarlett, and in desiring him, if the statement was true, to demand reparation in general terms until the case should be officially before them. In Sir John Dodson's opinion, the Government were also right in applying, in the first instance, to the Government of Tuscany, and not to that of Austria, for reparation; and Sir John Dodson considered that they were right in intimating to Lord Westmoreland that they would hold Austria liable if obstacles were thrown by Austrian influence in the way of obtaining justice for British subjects. Sir J. Dodson further said that he thought Her Majesty's Government were right in not deferring the case until they had obtained an official account of the facts of the outrage. He (Earl Granville) might take the opportunity of saying that he concurred in the opinion which had been expressed, that the Austrian authorities seemed evidently to have been actuated by a wish to bring this unfortunate matter to a satisfactory conclusion. That appeared to be the desire of the officials at Florence, of Count Buol, and of Prince Schwarzenberg. He (Earl Granville) would here take occasion to say that he had been much gratified to find, as he had done, from the production of these papers, that the last communication made to the British Government by Prince Schwarzenberg—who certainly possessed some great and amiable qualities, and who had rendered important services to his Sovereign and to his country—before his premature and sudden death, was couched in a singularly conciliating and temperate tone. He (Earl Granville) had felt it necessary to make these few observations in vindication of the part which Her Majesty's late Government had
1052
taken on this question, and he hoped he had succeeded in showing that they had taken the only course which it was possible for them to adopt—a course that was consistent with authority and precedent, and, if he might be allowed to say so, with common sense. He certainly thought that if the late Government had pursued any other line of conduct, they would only have complicated still more a matter already sufficiently complicated in its nature, and would have increased the difficulty of their successors.
The EARL of DERBY: My Lords, I think I may venture to congratulate your Lordships on the calm and temperate tone in which this question has been treated on all sides; and I think the clear and able statement of my noble Friend the Secretary for Foreign Affairs must have gone far to deprive the subject of much of the factitious importance with which it has been invested by the statements which have been made in the public prints and elsewhere. There seem, with regard to the proceedings which have taken place, very few points upon which much difference of opinion exists. I am happy to remark that, in the discussion this evening, all minor considerations, all questions as to the expressions in this or that despatch, all deviations from that "pure well of English undefiled," of which it seems to be supposed that a perennial fountain is perpetually bubbling up in Downing-street, all unnecessary mention of what Prince Schwarzenberg wrote before his death, have been entirely waved and passed by, as they very well deserved to be, and the question has been confined to this—what are the specific points which require the examination and the judgment of the House of Lords? I think there is a general concurrence of opinion—though I must except one high authority, whose opinion must be regarded with great respect—that in the first instance, at all events, the late Government were justified in applying to the Tuscan Government as soon as they received intelligence of this unfortunate event. That, I think, is an important fact. That has been the guiding, leading principle which has actuated Her Majesty's Government throughout—that for injuries committed upon British subjects on Tuscan soil, no matter by whom, or under what circumstances, so long as Tuscany enjoys the privileges of an independent State, so long as she has her diplomatic agents, and receives

1053
diplomatic functionaries at Florence, she must be held exclusively liable. Every one agrees in the opinion that no blame attaches to young Mr. Mather in this transaction. Even admitting, what is exceedingly possible, that there may be so much of correctness in the Austrian report as that Mr. Mather, being hustled back-wards and forwards, from one officer to another, and being struck in the face, did, perhaps, naturally enough for an Englishman under such circumstances, involuntarily raise his arm, that he did turn round somewhat indignantly, and that, not being very well acquainted with the Italian language—as he himself states was the fact—he asked what was the meaning of the attack—still, there was nothing done which could have justified the outrageous assault made upon him. At all events, he was an unoffending party, and he had a perfect right to ask and to expect the full protection of the State under whose laws he was placed. But, with regard to this case, I think we ought to draw a distinction between what may be looked upon as the national point of view, and the injury done to the individual. If an Austrian officer had committed an insult or an offence of a national character against a British subject—if he had been guilty of an insult against the Government of England—if, for example, he had joined in pulling down the consular flag, or in offering any insult which could be regarded as a national injury—I am not prepared to say that in such a case I should not hold the State employing such an officer responsible for the national insult. But in this case, as has been said by the noble Earl opposite, there is, from first to last, no question of national insult or national indignity. It is perfectly clear the officer did not know that the offending party was an Englishman; it is perfectly clear that he had no previous malice and no previous grudge against him; it is perfectly clear that, from the very first, all the Austrian authorities, differing with us as to the responsibility of the individual officers, joined in disclaiming anything like national feeling, and in expressing regret for the unfortunate occurrence. I cannot refrain from reading to your Lordships the language used by Prince Lichtenstein on the very day after this unfortunate occurrence:—
"I am entirely persuaded (he says) that Mr. Mather had not the least intention in the world to provoke a disturbance, and that merely a coinci-
1054
dence of unfortunate circumstances, among which I include also the fact, that Mr. Mather does not understand Italian, as it would appear, has been the cause of this unpleasant affair. Although extremely sorry at this mischance, I could not blame the officer on duty, who acted as every officer of every army would have acted under such circumstances, being on duty, and running the risk of receiving an insult at a moment when, sabre in hand, he was in front of his troops. Although excusable, I gave a severe official reprimand to the other officer, who, meddling unnecessarily in this affair, contributed to Mr. Mather's state of irritation. I regret much that a British subject who, without wishing it, and even without knowing it, has given rise to so sad an occurrence, should have been the victim of it; and I sincerely hope that you will never again have occasion to write to mo on such a matter. I have sent Captain Theiss today to the hospital to obtain an account of the state of Mr. Mather's health, and to cause inquiry to be made of him whether he had everything that he required, in order that I might offer him my services in case of necessity; but the physician would not permit him to talk with him, assuring him, however, that, thank God! the wound was not in the least degree dangerous, and would leave no disagreeable consequences. While repeating my regret that this affair between a British subject and an Austrian subject should have occurred, I request, &c."
It was impossible for any officer placed in the position of Prince Lichtenstein to offer a more handsome expression of regret, or to go further in testifying sympathy; and when, at a subsequent period, Prince Schwarzenberg himself, on the part of the Austrian Government, expressed their regret at the occurrence, all national feeling, as between England and Austria, must be considered to have been at an end. I agree, therefore, in the opinion expressed by my noble Friend near mo, although it seemed to excite some comment among noble Lords opposite, that under such circumstances any application to the Austrian Government was unimportant. But observe what further passed. So far as the Austrian part of the case is concerned, not only was there an expression of regret that anything of this unpleasant nature should have happened, but as regarded Mr. Mather himself, there was a distinct declaration made on the part of the officer who committed the outrage, and of his commanding officer, that if Mr. Mather would make a declaration that he intended no insult to the officer with whom he had come in contact, the officer would, in any terms he might desire, express his regret at having been betrayed into the action. As regarded Austria and her officer, you could ask nothing but that the officer should be tried by the laws of the country for the offence which he had committed;

1055
but, without your asking, that trial has taken place by the military law of Austria, and under that law the officer has been found not guilty. Now, mind, I say nothing about the rules of etiquette in the Austrian service, which require, under pain of degradation and dismissal, that an officer on duty, if he suspects he is about to be struck, should cut down the offender. God forbid that I should defend such a regulation! but that is the rule of the Austrian service; and, according to it, the Austrian officer could do nothing but what he did, and, having been acquitted by the court-martial, if you had gone to Austria she would have said, "You admit that no international offence has been committed; we are to punish him, then, for what? for that of which he has been declared to be not guilty!" I think what my noble Friend (the Earl of Malmesbury) observed upon the course taken by the noble Earl opposite (Earl Granville) was, that he thought an error had been committed in appealing to the Tuscan Government in the first instance, before applying personally to the tribunals of the country, and then that the tribunals of the country being unwilling or unable to give redress, then Mr. Mather would have had a right to apply to his own Government to make it a question between the two Governments, and to insist that justice should be done. I think that that principle was lost sight of, and it was unfortunate that it was so; because from the first the course which Mr. Scarlett took in accepting that which Mr. Mather placed in his hands—namely, the whole conduct of the affair was making that which should have been a personal matter prematurely an international grievance. I think that in that Mr. Scarlett committed an error. Then, supposing that reparation was to be given, and that the Tuscan Government, was the quarter to which you should look, what was to be the character and quality of that reparation? Should it be an apology? An apology was tendered by Austria, and rejected in the most indignant manner by Mr. Mather, who demanded a full and impartial examination of the case, and exemplary punishment of the offender. The only event in which the noble Earl opposite thought that an appeal ought to be made to the Austrian Government was in case of any undue influence being used by them to prevent the inquiry which was to be instituted being a fair and impartial inquiry. Mr. Scarlett represents, however, that the
1056
inquiry was full and impartial, and that it was conducted in accordance with the principles of justice, and with no desire to screen the facts of the case, or to shelter any single party. The inquiry having terminated, an application was made to the Tuscan Government for the punishment of the offender; but their answer was, "We have a treaty with Austria which renders it impossible that we can punish the offender; he is withdrawn from the cognisance of the courts of Tuscany—the Austrian troops in Tuscany are beyond the control of the law, and we have no power to punish them." I must say I think it would have been most unwise and injudicious if we had accepted and admitted the total irresponsibility of the Austrian troops which were thus permitted to be in the Tuscan territory. This has been so unanimously admitted by your Lordships that I will not weary you by dwelling on it. It appears that these troops are in Tuscany by a treaty by which we are in no way bound, because it is not a patent, but a secret article. We have never recognised the presence of the Austrian army; the Tuscan Government thought it right to invite them to assist them in maintaining order; but as regards foreign nations, that army must be considered as acting under the orders and directions of the Tuscan Government, who are responsible for any injury these troops may do. In a precisely parallel case, which occurred in 1849, the late Government, acting under the advice of the Queen's Advocate, thought it their duty to insist on the sole responsibility of Tuscany for injuries inflicted by Austrian troops. The English Government had, however, a perfect right to say to Tuscany, "You say you cannot punish the offender; then we ask you to give the injured person some reparation." I have nothing to say to Mr. Mather's declaration that he did not want pecuniary compensation; hut he insisted on that which could not be obtained—the punishment of the person who inflicted the injury. But though we had full right to demand of Tuscany on the part of a British subject that he should have full reparation, we could not demand that she should do that which by treaty she had involved herself in the impossibility of doing. It might have been more judicious, I will admit, if my noble Friend could have fixed at once upon a sum to demand, when, as he truly said, while the honour of England rested in his hands, he was prepared to

1057
demand for Mr. Mather, if he asked for it, personal reparation of the injury. With regard to the specific sum, allow me to remind you that the noble and learned Lord the Chief Justice admitted that for fixing a sum nothing could be more precarious or capricious than the verdict of an English jury in such a case. Irrespective of the amount of the sum, however, that which was of importance—that which was pressed for by my noble Friend from first to last—was the recognition on the part of the Tuscan Government of its responsibility for protecting British subjects, and of its liability to grant reparation, not as a matter of grace or favour, but as a matter of right, on which we should have in this and in all future cases an absolute right to insist according to the law of nations and international responsibility. My noble Friend has been found fault with for the course he had adopted. Now, my Lords, for the whole course of these proceedings I avow myself as fully and entirely responsible as my noble Friend; for not one step did he take, not one direction did he give, without my previous knowledge and consent; and if he is to be censured, I am just as much and as entirely open to censure as he from whatever quarter that censure may proceed. But the fact is that my noble Friend has throughout insisted on that which he thought the matter of the greatest importance. From first to last he has assumed that Tuscany was responsible for reparation, and that from Tuscany we must have a tangible acknowledgment, in the shape of a pecuniary reparation of her liability to protect British subjects in that country. On March 12, in one of his very first communications to Mr. Scarlett, he writes—
"But although Her Majesty's Government cannot but admit that in regard to this matter the position of the Tuscan Government is peculiar, inasmuch as the outrage upon Mr. Mather was committed by an Austrian officer, who himself is only amenable to the martial law of Austria, Her Majesty's Government nevertheless cannot permit the Tuscan Government to repudiate the responsibility of an independent State to protect the subjects of foreign Powers residing peaceably in the territory of that State, on the plea that there is no tribunal in Tuscany competent to take cognizance of complaints preferred by such persons. Tuscany assumes to exercise the privileges of an independent State. As the Sovereign of an independent State, the Grand Duke has accredited Prince Poniatowski as his Minister at the Court of England; and his Imperial and Royal Highness has moreover recently intimated his intention, if necessary, formally to refuse to receive a specific Minister appointep by the Queen to reside as Her Representative at the Grand
1058
Ducal Court, alleging that in so refusing he would be merely exorcising a right inherent in all independent States. It is therefore necessary to impress upon the Tuscan Government that Her Majesty's Government cannot admit the right of Tuscany to claim the privilege of an independent State, and at the same time to be relieved from the corresponding obligations which attach to that political position."
Now, my Lords, I wish I could stop here, and that I were not compelled, by a sense of duty to the Government, and to the merits of the ease, to inquire, as I do with very great regret into the vindication which the noble and learned Lord Chief Justice has thought it his duty to offer to your Lordships of the conduct of Mr. Scarlett; because that vindication involves a charge against the Government, to which it is not obnoxious. I am quite sure that Mr. Scarlett has no reason to complain of the terms in which my noble Friend (the Earl of Malmesbury) spoke of his previous services, and of the high position which he has attained in the diplomatic service; and if my noble Friend did characterise what has taken place as an error in judgment, I am sure that is a term which could not be offensive to that gentleman, however painful it might be to any one acting in a subordinate capacity to know that his conduct did not meet with the approval of his superior. The noble and learned Lord, how-over, very fairly stated the three charges against Mr. Scarlett, which are—I that he accepted a less sum than he was authorised by his instructions to receive; 2. that he waved the question of the responsibility of Tuscany, which was the most important point of all; and, 3. that he had mixed up with this question the case of the Messrs. Stratford. In the Stratford case there was, in the first place, great difficulty in establishing the right of this country to interfere at all. Though those gentlemen had been tried by an extra-judicial tribunal (by an Austrian military tribunal) for an offence which ought to have been tried before the ordinary tribunals of justice, the sentence, being beyond that which the ordinary Tuscan tribunals would have inflicted, had been commuted to the Tuscan level, and the Grand Duke had promised that within a very limited period the sentence of imprisonment to which they had been subjected should be brought to a conclusion. But that of which we complained was, not that Mr. Scarlett thought it right to use his best efforts for the immediate liberation of any British subject—God forbid that we should do that! but that he,

1059
on a question of individual and personal reparation to be made to one individual, should have accepted a smaller sum than he was bound to ask for in reparation in consideration of the favour to be shown to some third parties with whom the individual was altogether unconnected. The argument of the noble and learned Lord is, that the instructions which were given to Mr. Scarlett were so vague and general that he was not bound to insist upon any specific sum. The best witness on this point is Mr. Scarlett himself, who says, "no objection is now made to the amount of 500 l. which I have fixed positively as the minimum for compensation." He stated that his instructions were positive upon the subject; and, in the last letter which had been laid upon the table, Mr. Scarlett says—
"I take upon myself the entire responsibility of accepting 1,000 franscesconi by way of damages. My reasons for thus deviating from your Lordship's instructions, by which I was to obtain at least 500 l., are, that having repeatedly demanded this latter sum, I was unable to obtain any more than 1,000 francesconi, which was at length offered by the Tuscan Government."
When we perceived that reparation had been given so far below what we thought was due to Mr. Mather, it is quite true that we heard that information with very great regret; and upon receiving from Mr. Barron the first intimation of the arrangement which Mr. Scarlett had made, my noble Friend wrote to Sir H. Bulwer on the 21st of May in these terms:—
"Her Majesty's Government cannot for a moment doubt the zeal which Mr. Scarlett has uniformly shown in carrying out till now the various orders which he has received from this office bearing upon questions of a difficult and vexatious character, and they are ready to admit that in this last transaction Mr. Scarlett has acted to the best of his judgment. I should not, however, be strictly performing my duty were I not to express to you that Her Majesty's Government regret that Mr. Scarlett should have taken a view of what was expedient in the settlement of Mr. Mather's compensation as much at variance with his instructions as with sound reason and equity. It appears from Mr. Scarlett's despatch of the 2nd of April, that he had already obtained a promise from the Tuscan Government that the Messrs. Stratford would be soon released, and that, awaiting their liberation, they were treated with as much leniency as could be exercised in any prison, and for an offence which Her Majesty's Government have never attempted to palliate. The remonstrance against the confinement of these gentlemen was founded on a legal flaw respecting their trial, and not on their innocence, and Mr. Scarlett should have restricted his negotiation in their case to endeavours to hasten as much as possible their promised freedom. It is clear that this could have no possible connexion with the injury
1060
perpetrated on Mr. Mather, who was a harmless traveller, conforming in every respect to the laws of Tuscany. This injury having been acknowledged by the Tuscan Government to our Charge d'Affaires, could only be atoned for by a public act; and this I instructed Mr. Scarlett to obtain in the shape of a pecuniary compensation of not less than 500 l. to be paid by the Tuscan Government. Such an act would answer two objects: First, it would be a moral vindication before our country of the right of an Englishman to protection when residing peacefully in a friendly State; and, secondly, it would give practically to Mr. Mather those damages which an English court of justice would have granted him under similar circumstances, but which the Tuscan courts had not decreed, because the Tuscan Government refused to open them to his appeal. Although I have with much regret explained to you that Her Majesty's Government cannot approve of the arrangement thus concluded by Her Majesty's Charge d'Affaires at Florence, they will of course not refuse to recognise it."
And, he adds, to show the feeling with which that despatch is written—
"And I request that you will not express to Mr. Scarlett their opinion until he shall have recovered from the dangerous illness under which I fear he is suffering."
Just after this despatch had been sent, came another statement from Mr. Scarlett, which entirely altered the character of the whole transaction, and showed not only that the amount of compensation had been diminished, but that the very principle for which throughout we had been contending—that which had been the basis of the whole negotiation, that which we had been labouring to assume and to affirm—had not only been waived by Mr. Scarlett, but that he had made on his own part, and spontaneously, an offer to the Tuscan Government to waive it. The noble and learned Lord (Lord Campbell) said that Mr. Scarlett had received contradictory directions with reference to continuing or bringing the negotiations to a conclusion. So far from that being the case, my noble Friend wrote to Mr. Scarlett on the 9th April that, if the Tuscan Government refused the compensation demanded, he was to await the arrival of Sir H. Bulwer, and to take no steps in the meantime. On the 27th of April my noble Friend certainly wrote to Mr. Scarlett, "To-morrow Sir H. Bulwer will set out for Florence, but I still hope you will have arranged with the Tuscan Government the matter in dispute." "Arranged!" Yes; but of course upon the terms which we had previously laid down as a sine quâ non. Recollect that throughout the whole of the case the responsibility of the Tuscan Government was the point upon which every-

1061
tiling turned. How, then, could it, be expected, in the face of the distinct instructions which were given him, that Mr. Scarlett would write to the Duke do Casigliano in these terms?—
"Actuated by this feeling, and trusting that his Excellency the Tuscan Minister for Foreign Affairs is equally willing to meet the wishes of the undersigned in a similar spirit, the undersigned has to propose to his Excellency the Minister for Foreign Affairs that the principle involved of responsibility should not be raised, and all discussion with reference to it entirely avoided."
Here it was proposed on the part of our Minister to the Minister of Foreign Affairs in Tuscany to waive the whole question which he was instructed to persevere in, and with respect to which he was instructed that, if he could not obtain a satisfactory settlement, he must break off the negotiation; and, moreover, inform the Tuscan Government that it would be necessary to withdraw the mission from Tuscany, and no longer continue to treat with them as an independent Power. Well, what was the letter which the Duke do Casigliano wrote in reply to this? I must say that the conduct of the Tuscan Government in this matter forms a painful contrast to the frank and generous spirit in which complaints were met by the Government of Austria. I venture to say that there arc few Foreign Ministers who would have addressed such a letter to any British agent as that which the Duke de Casigliano addressed to Mr. Scarlett on the 10th of May; and that there are few foreign agents, of whatever station, who would acquiesce in the principle therein laid down:—
"Florence, May 10, 1852.
"The undersigned, Ac, in acknowledging the receipt of the note which the Charge d'Affaires of England addressed to him on the 6th inst., is happy to discover in it a proof of the intention of the British Government to arrange amicably the affair regarding what occurred at Florence between Mr. Mather, an English subject, and an officer belonging to the Austrian auxiliary force, by placing the question in an entirely different point of view from that put forward in the note of the 18th of April last. At the same time that he refers to the principles stated in his preceding notes, and refrains from producing further arguments in support of them, the undersigned is authorised by his august Sovereign to agree to the proposal to put aside any observation hearing on the principle of the question, and to listen only to the appeal made to the liberality of his Imperial and Royal Highness the Grand Duke. The undersigned having taken the orders of his Sovereign, is commanded to signify to the British representative, that his Imperial and Royal Highness, influenced by a sentiment of generosity which is not to be appealed to as a precedent in
1062
similar cases, agrees to grant to Mr. Mather as a pecuniary indemnity the sum of 1,000 francesconi, which far exceeds any indemnity which could in the matter in question be awarded by the Tuscan tribunals."
That is the answer which was sent to, and accepted, by Mr. Scarlett; and although the noble and learned Lord has taken credit to Mr. Scarlett for altering a passage which was still more offensive than that which I have read, I may be permitted to state that the alteration was not made by Mr. Scarlett at all; that Mr. Searlctt accepted the note with the insertion of the offensive passage; and that the passage was at last expunged upon a representation by Mr. Barron, the attaché who acted for Mr. Scarlett during his illness. I regret to be compelled to make this statement. I have great respect for the noble Lord the brother of Mr. Scarlett; another of his brothers is one of the oldest friends I have; but it is impossible that I should allow myself to be swayed by personal considerations in a matter like this. I am bound to show that Mr. Scarlett is responsible for having accepted a less sum than he was required by the Government to exact; and that he was not justified in volunteering to waive that which had been from first to last laid down by the Government as an essential principle which it was impossible in any way to compromise.
LORD CAMPBELLwished to call the noble Earl's attention to the letter which Mr. Scarlett addressed to the Duke de Casigliano on the 11th of May.
The EARL of DERBY: I have no objection to read the letter to which the noble and learned Lord refers:—
"Florence, May 11, 1852.
"I have the honour to acknowledge the receipt of your Excellency's note of yesterday's date, informing me that his Imperial and Royal Highness the Grand Duke has been pleased to accord to Mr. Mather the sum of 1,000 francesconi as a pecuniary compensation for the 'incident which took place between him and an Austrian officer.' I confess that this sum appears to me hardly adequate to the injury inflicted by this outrage, or to the guilt of the offenders. Nevertheless, considering that this is more than he could recover by means of the Tuscan courts of law; considering that Mr. Mather is not in that condition of life which would render the amount an object of great importance to him; hut more especially considering the importance attached by Her Majesty's Government to the friendly relations now happily subsisting with that of Tuscany (which friendly relations might be embittered by a further protraction of this controversy), I am willing to accept the sum offered. It is now my intention, in strict conformity with my note of the 6tb instant, to avoid all discussion of the principles involved

1063
in this question. Your Excellency has been pleased, however, to refer, in your note of yesterday, to those principles of public law advanced in your former notes. It is therefore my duty to refer your Excellency to those principles laid down in my former notes on this case (particularly in that of the 17th of March), as still upheld in their fullest integrity by Her Majesty's Government."
Yes; but these principles were not recognised by the Tuscan Government in granting the amount which was accepted by Mr. Scarlett—as an instance of the liberality and generosity of the Grand Duke, and on the understanding that it was not to be drawn into a precedent in future cases. I really do not think that this letter at all alters the position of the case as I have stated it. But what I do think may be drawn from the discussion which has just taken place is this—that an injury having been inflicted on a British subject, we took the question up in a double light, of an insult offered to this country, and an injury to a British subject. With respect to the first, we have received from the Austrian Government, and the Austrian officers concerned, the fullest explanations and expressions of regret; and with regard to the second we have treated it throughout as a case for private reparation, which a British subject has a right to claim and to expect. We also thought that the Tuscan Government was the only-one from whom we had a right to claim that reparation. We maintained, throughout, the principle that nations cannot be upheld in all the privileges of independence, and, at the same time, be allowed to refuse liability to the responsibility of independence. In as far as lay in our power, we have endeavoured to obtain pecuniary reparation for the injury inflicted on the individual, and an acknowledgment on the part of Tuscany of that obligation of which we shall never cease to demand the enforcement—namely, the protection by their tribunals; or, if not by their tribunals, at least by their Executive, of British subjects passing through, or residing in, the Tuscan territories, from whatever quarter they may be assaulted. Unquestionably, if the Tuscan Government persist in refusing to fulfil this plain and palpable obligation, it will be impossible for Her Majesty's Government to continue to treat with them as an independent nation entitled to the rights of diplomatic intercourse. Consequently, although it is impossible that, consistent with public duty, we can lay before the House any
1064
instructions which may have been given to Sir Henry Bulwer, your Lordships will find from one despatch in the papers on your Lordships' table, that, in the event of this plain duty not being recognised by Tuscany, with whatever pain on our part, we shall be compelled to suspend all diplomatic relations with that country.
The MARQUESS of NORMANBYexpressed a hope that Lord Beaumont would modify the expressions he had used relative to the state of Central Italy, which he said would almost justify a general insurrection—coupled with a prophecy that such an event was perhaps near at hand. He (the Marquess of Normanby) had lived perhaps more than any of their Lordships in the atmosphere of revolution. He had seen the beginning and end of some of them; and his interest was not less than the noble Lord's in the prosperity of Italy. He was quite sure that the noble Lord only meant to deprecate insurrection; but their Lordships were not aware of the immense importance which was attached to such statements abroad.
EARL FITZWILLIAMsaid, his noble Friend (the Earl of Derby) in the course of his speech, in justifying the conduct which the Government had pursued in this matter, spoke of a trial to which the Austrian officer had been subjected. He did not understand in what part of the papers before their Lordships his noble Friend could trace any evidence of such a trial. [The Earl of DERBY: I said a court-martial.] There was no indication that any court-martial had been held; and he complained of his noble Friend that, in defending himself and the Government, he had been too hard on the unfortunate gentleman who had been the innocent cause of all that discussion. He stated that Mr. Mather had indignantly rejected all offers of apology; but surely no sufficient apology had been proffered to that injured gentleman. Perhaps when the sum of 5,000 l. was demanded as a reparation for this outrage, it might have appeared to some persons exorbitant. He confessed it so appeared to himself in the first instance; but he was bound to say, on a consideration of all the circumstances, that he did not think that sum was exorbitant. Mr. Mather was a well-educated man and a merchant; and would any man tell him (Earl Fitzwilliam) that if that gentleman had been prevented by this outrage from pursuing his vocation for the remainder of his life, that 5,000 l. would have been any-

1065
thing like a sufficient compensation? It did not appear to him that the result of this negotiation would he what it ought to be—4o place those of our countrymen who sought the protection of the Government against wanton outrages committed upon them by the subjects of foreign countries in a better situation than they would have been if such negotiations had never been entered upon.
LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYthought that Mr. Mather had met with hard justice from the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Malmesbury). He thought there was a great distinction to be drawn between injuries inflicted on private persons by other private individuals, which would properly form the subject of an action at law, and those inflicted by an officer of the Government at a time when he was acting as a public functionary, which would more properly be the subject of remonstrance to his Government. He (Lord Stanley) understood that Sir II. Bulwer had been instructed to disavow the acts of Mr. Scarlett. Now, he thought considerable discretion had been given by the Government to Mr. Scarlett, as to the amount of compensation he was to receive, and the chief object of that gentleman had been to get the matter brought to an amicable termination. They must all see the evil effects resulting from the present occupation of the Italian States by Austrian troops. There was hardly a case of injury done to an English subject in which they would not have disputes about conflicting-authorities, and English subjects would be liable to outrages without the possibility of demanding for them just reparation. He would strongly urge upon the noble Earl opposite the importance of making such representations in common with the other friendly Powers to the Italian States as were made in 1832 by the representatives of all the great Powers, who then thought that the security of the territory of the Italian States should depend upon a liberal and equitable administration, by giving to the people free institutions suited to their condition. They would thus obtain greater security and tranquility, through the love and affection of their subjects, than they could acquire by the aid of Austria, which would give them merely a false security, and, as in this instance, lead them into difficulties with other countries, rendering it impossible for those countries to continue on friendly relations with them.
The EARL of MALMESBURY: My Lords, I received yesterday a despatch which was laid to-day upon your Lordships' table, in which Mr. Scarlett takes the whole responsibility upon himself, and says he was bound down to get 500 l.; and that should be sufficient, I think, on that point. With respect to the question which [the noble Lord asked, I beg to tell him the last despatch to Sir H. Bulwer in these papers is not the last he has received; but what instructions were given in that despatch I cannot tell my noble Friend at present. I can only assure him that the Government are as anxious as he or anybody else that the Austrian and French troops should retire as soon as possible from Italy, and that that magnificent country should be placed in the position among nations to which she is entitled.
LORD BEAUMONT,in reply, said, he felt very well satisfied with the result of the debate that had taken place. The two salient points that had been referred to in the course of his observations had been fully discussed, and he was happy to say that the general impression left upon his mind was, that the discussion was very satisfactory. On the first point, in reference to the responsibility of the Government, there was not any difference of opinion, with the exception of the noble Earl below him (the Earl of Aberdeen). He regretted that so high an authority, and one for whom he entertained so great a respect, should dissent from him on this subject; but he trusted that the general expression of their Lordships' opinion would more than counterbalance the single opinion of the noble Earl. Then with respect to the other point, to which he looked with equal interest, he had received a satisfactory assurance even in the concluding speech just uttered by the noble Earl opposite. He was glad to hear from him that Her Majesty's Government were desirous to come to some settlement by which the Austrian troops should be withdrawn. He was glad to hear that announcement as part of the policy of Her Majesty's Government—he was also glad to find that it was in accordance with the opinion of the Members of the preceding Government—so that the noble Earl opposite might anticipate abundant support in every step he took to accomplish that end. He understood from the noble Earl opposite that it was impossible to get that special despatch containing the last instruction; and with

1067
the leave of the House he should withdraw his Motion.
Motion (by leave of the House) withdrawn.

HEREDITARY CASUAL REVENUES IN THE COLONIES BILL.
The EARL of DESARTmoved that this Bill be read a Second Time.
The DUKE of NEWCASTLE: Perhaps my noble Friend would state the object of this Bill, for on looking over it we are unable to ascertain its exact purport, and no explanation of its provisions has been laid before us. I would not call upon the noble Earl to afford us an explanation were it not that no discussion took place in the House of Commons on the subject. Though the attention of several hon. Gentlemen were called to it, it passed there nevertheless without any observation, and we are left in utter ignorance with regard to its provisions.
The EARL of DESART: The waste lands in the Colonies are always vested in the Crown, and have hitherto been granted and disposed of by the Crown, and the monies arising from the sales of such lands have been appropriated under the authority of the Crown and of the Colonial Legislatures, instead of being carried to the Consolidated Fund, as hereditary casual revenues of the Crown; and this Bill is to authorise that mode of disposing of the monies arising from that source. The proceeds of the waste lands are to be disposed of for the advantage of the colony, and any surplus that remains, after expending what is necessary for the advantage of the colony, is to go to the Consolidated Fund.
Bill read 2ª, and committed to a Committee of the whole House.
House adjourned till To-morrow.