The DUKE of ARGYLLMy Lords, I wish to ask the noble Secretary for Foreign Affairs a question, of which I have not given him previous notice, and which I will put on another occasion if the noble Earl has any objection to answer it now. Your Lordships will probably have seen in the public papers a statement to the effect that a person of the name of Murray, a subject of the English Crown, has been kept in prison at Rome for the space of, I think it is said, two or three years, without trial; that he was accused of a criminal offence; and that he has recently been found guilty and sentenced to death. My Lords, this is a somewhat extraordinary statement with reference to a British subject, and I am anxious to ask the noble Earl whether any communication or application has been made to him on the part of the friends of this gentleman, or from our consular agent at Rome, who is the only channel of communication we have with that State? Is the noble Earl able to give us any explanation of the circumstances under which that gentleman has suffered for so long a time, and the circumstances under which he has been brought to trial? It has been stated that the trial, which terminated in his being sentenced to death, was a secret one; that he was not allowed to confront the witnesses who gave evidence against him. In short, it would appear that the whole proceedings were such as not to inspire the English 668 public with any confidence that justice has been done to their countryman.
§ The EARL of MALMESBURYMy Lords, I beg to state that I am exceedingly obliged to the noble Duke for the opportunity he has given me of explaining what I myself have observed in some of the public journals with some pain. The facts of the case to which the noble Duke has alluded are these, as far as I am informed: —About a week after I came into office— the first week, I think, in March—I received a despatch from Mr. Freeborn, our consul at Rome, stating that a gentleman of the name of Murray, the son of a meritorious officer formerly in Her Majesty's service, had been for something like thirty months confined in the common prison at Ancona upon a charge of murder; that he was charged with having committed, in common with a band of regular murderers, several murders in that part of the country; that he had not been brought to his trial before in consequence of the disturbed state of the country; but that he had been, in consequence of the representations of Mr. Moore, removed from the prison at Ancona to the prison at Rome. Upon this, Mr. Freeborn waited upon Cardinal Antonelli for the purpose of demanding that he should have a fair trial, and that justice should be done him. Cardinal Antonelli promised at the time that justice should be done to him. I have since received a despatch from Mr. Freeborn, stating the arrival of Mr. Murray at Rome. Immediately on receiving the first despatch, I wrote to Mr. Freeborn, requesting that he would use his utmost endeavours to get fair play done to this gentleman, and desiring him to watch the proceedings, and take care that no injustice should be done to him. The next information I had upon the matter was what I read in the public papers. Mr. Freeborn has not furnished me with any further information upon the subject, nor have I seen in regular course any information which has reached us from our Chargé d'Affaires at Florence. Your Lordships, of course, are aware of the very anomalous position in which we stand with regard to Rome. It is only by a roundabout course, by a sort of underhand way, unworthy certainly of a great country like this, that we are enabled to vindicate, with respect to Rome, that international law which it is my peculiar duty to see carried out between this and other nations. That is all I know upon the subject. Two months ago I wrote a despatch to Mr. 669 Freeborn couched in the strongest possible terms, directing him to see that this gentleman had fair play; and I have no objection whatever to lay the correspondence which has taken place on the table of the House.
The DUKE of ARGYLLMy Lords, I am entirely satisfied with the answer which the noble Earl has given, so far as he individually is concerned. It must be apparent to the House that if this gentleman had been in prison during the space of two or three years, as is stated in some of the public prints, without any remonstrance having been made on the part of the English Government, the noble Earl is not responsible, but those who preceded him in the office of Foreign Affairs. I now turn to another subject. I wish to ask my noble Friend opposite, whether he has any objection to produce those despatches which have passed between him and his predecessor at the Foreign Office and the Austrian Government, with respect to Messrs. Wingate, Smith, and Edwards, who were missionaries in Hungary. I observe, my Lords, that these papers have appeared in the public press, but they are not yet officially laid on the table of this House. I confess I shall peruse the correspondence with some curiosity. As far as I have been able to judge, the reply which has been given by my noble Friend opposite to the Austrian Government, in reference to these gentlemen, is far from satisfactory; and the answer which has been given by the Austrian Government I consider to be still less satisfactory. At the same time I do not wish to be misunderstood by the noble Earl opposite as to the spirit in which I put this question. Of course I am not anxious to deprecate any idea of hostility to Her Majesty's present Government as far as regards their home policy. I am not anxious to express any opinion at all to the House upon that policy, of which no human being knows anything whatever. But there is one thing I am anxious to deprecate, and that is the supposition that there is any party in this House that whoever may occupy the Foreign Office in this country—whatever political party that Minister may belong to—will not ever be anxious to vindicate the rights of British subjects abroad. I feel perfectly certain that whatever political party may be in power they will all be equally anxious to vindicate the rights of the British public, and to maintain inviolate those rights which it is the 670 especial duty of the noble Earl and of the Foreign Office to defend.
§ The EARL of MALMESBURYI am sorry to state that I am not able to produce the correspondence in question, as it is not yet complete. With respect to what the noble Duke has stated, as to the maintenance of the rights of British subjects, I beg to give him my most solemn assurance that there is nothing which I have so much at heart since I entered upon the duties of the office which I have now the honour to fill, as the faithful performance of that duty which especially devolves upon me, namely, that of maintaining inviolate the international law between this and other countries. If I understand my duty aright, it is not to argue with other countries as to any particular law which they may be pleased in their wisdom, or the reverse, to establish in their own dominions; but to see that that law is carried out fairly with respect to Her Majesty's subjects. That, I think, is my duty, and that duty I have endeavoured to discharge. Although the correspondence is not at this moment complete, yet when it is complete, I shall be happy to lay it upon the table of the House.
§ The MARQUESS of BREADALBANEMy Lords, a few weeks ago the noble Earl then Secretary for Foreign Affairs declared the case of these three missionaries to be a very hard one, and stated that, in his opinion, they were entitled to pecuniary compensation. That was also the opinion of my noble Friend (Earl Granville), declared in his place in Parliament. I therefore trust that the negotiations on this subject will be conducted in the same spirit as that which was exhibited by my noble Friend, and that the Austrian Government will not be allowed to escape from the consideration of its conduct on that occasion; and further, that it will not be allowed to exercise its arbitrary principles towards British subjects without our seriously entering a strong protest against it. These three missionaries were British subjects, exercising legitimate and legal functions in a purely Christian spirit, and for the purely Christian object of converting Jews to Christianity. They did not break any law of Austria whatever, and they had been allowed to exercise their functions without any blame or hindrance whatever, until the noble Earl and his friends came into power. Three weeks after the retirement of my noble Friend Lord Palmer- 671 ston from office, this misconduct was manifested on the part of the Austrian Government. Had that nobleman still held the seals of the Foreign Office, your Lordships would never have heard of this misconduct on the part of the Austrian Government.
§ EARL FITZWILLIAMIt was my intention to ask a question of the noble Earl (the Earl of Malmesbury), which I asked of his noble predecessor at the commencement of the Session with respect to the case of Mr. Mather. The answer which I then received from my noble Friend (Earl Granville) was this—that the gentleman who complained of the injurious treatment which he had met with in Florence had referred the question to the consideration of the Florentine Government. The question which I now wish to put to the noble Secretary of State, is, whether any subsequent information has been received respecting the proceedings in that case, and whether there had been any correspondence with the Florentine or with the Austrian Government—though I hold the Tuscan Government to he responsible— since the period when this question was last put?
§ The EARL of MALMESBURYThe case is not quite settled, although I believe that it is very nearly so. Perhaps the noble Earl will allow me to defer answering his question until I am able to give him a complete account of what has taken place.
§ LORD STANLEY of ALDERLEYNo communication with regard to the case of Mr. Murray had been received at the Foreign Office previous to the retirement of Lord Palmerston. I have no doubt that the noble Earl (the Earl of Malmesbury) will always do his best to vindicate the rights of British subjects, and to claim from foreign countries the due and impartial administration of justice towards them; but it certainly does appear that the mode in which British subjects are treated by some of the Continental countries is regulated far more by the feelings which those Governments entertain towards those who are in power here, than by those feelings which ought to actuate them.
LORD CAMPBELLMy Lords, I rejoice exceedingly to hear the noble Earl opposite complaining of the vague and irregular condition of our diplomatic relations with the Court of Rome. Great disasters have accrued from that state of things, and I hope that the noble Earl's 672 statement this evening will lead to its amendment. I can take upon myself, from my own personal knowledge, to state that our Consul at Rome, Mr. Freeborn, is a gentleman of great intelligence and respectability. I can also take upon myself to state that Mr. Petre, the attaché to our mission at Florence, is likewise a most intelligent and honourable man. But neither of these gentleman have that weight at the Court of Rome which ought to belong to the legitimate organs of this country. Therefore it is, my Lords, that the Court of Rome is abused as to the state of public opinion in this country; and to that circumstance we may ascribe the many disasters which of late years we have had to deplore. I believe that the Court of Rome is not indisposed to hear the truth; I believe that even in the highest quarters there is a desire to be well informed as to the state of public opinion among us; and if we had a regularly accredited agent at Rome, much good might be anticipated from such an appointment. I believe that the present unfortunate state of things is occasioned by an Amendment made by your Lordships in the Diplomatic Relations with Rome Bill. I may even say that I know that that Amendment has produced most disastrous effects. I have reason, however, to believe that a Minister from England would be gladly received at the Court of Rome, and that in laying before the Pope and Cardinal Antonelli, and the rest of the Roman Court, the real state of the Roman Catholics in England, as well as in Ireland, he would be listened to with respect; and I feel that if we were to take such a step a most salutary change in our relations with Rome would follow.