Lords Sitting of 8 August 1859

MINUTES.
Took the Oath.—The Lord Stuart de Decies.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1a Turnpike Acts Continuance; Dublin Police; Militia Laws Amendment; Charitable and Provident Societies.
2a Coinage; Probates and Letters of Administration (Ireland); Police (Counties and Boroughs); Turnpike Trusts Arrangements.
3a Military Savings' Banks; Universities Incorporation Act Amendment; Iocome Tax, &c.; Queen's Remembrancer, &c.; County Cess (Ireland) Acts Continuance; Universities (Scotland); Constabulary Force (Ireland); Manufactures (Ireland) Acts Continuance.
Royal Assent.—Admiralty Court; Jury Trial (Scotland) Act Amendment; Diplomatic Pensions; Criminal Justice, Middlesex (Assistant Judge); Pawnbrokers; Boundaries (Ireland); Chief Superintendent (China); Speaker of the Legislative Council (Canada); Militia Ballots Suspension; Court of Probate, &c. (Acquisition of Site) (No. 2); Local Government Supplemental; Colonial Legislatures Power of Repeal; Barbuda Government; Vexatious Indictments.

AFFAIRS OF ITALY.—THE PROJECT OF PEACE.—QUESTIONS.
THE MARQUESS OF NORMANBY, who had given notice "To ask a Question of
1096
Her Majesty's Government as to the Project of Peace transmitted by them to the Austrian Government previous to the Preliminaries of Villafranca, and to inquire whether there would be any Objection to the Production of any Official Communication from the Secretary of State to Her Majesty's Ambassador at Paris on the Subject," said—My Lords, I believe this is the last occasion during the present Session upon which I shall have an opportunity of calling your Lordships' attention to points connected with our foreign policy. I gave notice the other day of my intention to ask a Question of my noble Friend (Earl Granville) upon one or two points, and my observations, with few exceptions, will be confined to matters connected with the subject to which I have called your Lordships' attention by the terms of my notice. I believe that England is almost the only country in Europe in which any mystery still clings about the nature and character of those propositions which first saw the light under false colours at Villafranca. There they were called propositions of the neutral Powers: all other neutral Governments, whether constitutional or despotic, concerned in this question, save our own, have given explanations in writing and made general disclaimers of all connection with those propositions. The only explanation which has been given in this country was verbal, and was offered in the other House of Parliament, and was certainly somewhat scant. In the absence of any such explanation, upon the Continent they have formed their own opinion upon those transactions, which, I am sorry to say, is not creditable to the professed neutrality of this country, nor to our candour in communicating on the subject with other Governments. It is generally believed now that those propositions were the joint production of the popular diplomatist M. de Persigny and Lord Palmerston. I say of Lord Palmerston, because upon the Continent it is the habit of people, whenever the signature of Lord John Russell is not actually attached to any paper, to say that it is the act of Lord Palmerston, although, of course, we here consider them to be the joint acts of that noble Lord and Lord John Russell. It is supposed that the plan to which I allude originated in the desire of Lord Palmerston to realize, as soon as possible, his Tiverton programme, and that as to M. de Persigny the instructions of the French Government were to keep England as much as possible

1097
isolated from other Powers, and to involve her in the largest possible degree in the violation of existing treaties. It never could have been imagined, I think, by the French diplomatists that such a project could at that moment have been accepted by Austria. If I rightly recollect what passed in the other House, we were told then that the propositions were forwarded as the act of the French Government without any opinion upon them being expressed by the English Government. It was unnecessary, I must say, to give any opinion, because all the acts of the present Government and all the despatches written by the noble Lord at the head of the Foreign Department tend to show the greater the sacrifices that could be obtained from Austria the more pleased the Government would be. Those proposals, however, were simply forwarded without comment, a proceeding which led to a natural conclusion on the part of persons abroad, and if there has been any mistake or misapprehension, it is entirely owing to this irregular and unusual act on the part of the Government. It is generally believed that the Emperor Louis Napoleon told the Emperor Francis Joseph that England had cordially assented to the propositions of M. de Persigny, and unless my noble Friend can assure me that there is some authentic document on record to the contrary, I must say I think the Emperor Napoleon was justified in making such an assertion; I think, too, on the other hand, that the propositions having been sent by England to Vienna, it was natural that the Emperor Francis Joseph should give credence to that statement. What distresses me is, that from the first moment the present Government came into power there has not been any evidence of that bonâ fide neutrality which this country professed to maintain. The noble Lord at the head of the Government, upon the night before the division which overthrew the late Ministry, told the House of Commons he relied as much upon the foreign policy of Lord Derby's Government as upon their internal administration as grounds for a vote of want of confidence. Immediately after the division official documents appeared which certainly were very creditable to the late Government, and establishing the fact of a complete and bonâ fide neutrality. After those despatches had been produced, what said the noble Lord now at the head of the Government in taking office? He said, "As to foreign policy, our path is traced out for us; we shall
1098
follow in the footsteps of our predecessors." Whatever may have since happened these words remain, and, although they may not amount to a distinct approval of every act of the late Government, at all events they mean this—that the late Government had bonâ fide carried out the principle of neutrality, and that the present Government were resolved to persevere in the same course. But what is the fact? That professed neutrality has been repeatedly violated. Such is, I believe, the opinion of other Powers. Upon this subject I will read an extract from a despatch written by the Prussian Minister at Berlin to the Prussian Envoy at Vienna, which has not yet been published in the English papers. The Prussian Minister in this despatch defends his Government against the charge of having abandoned Austria, and of having supported, or as some said, originated this proposal. He says:—
"According to what the Comte de Rechberg has told your Excellency, the Cabinet of Vienna had been informed by the French Cabinet of the intentions of the neutral Powers. That which was presented on the part of France as the condition of mediation by the great neutral Powers was nearly that which Lord John Russell, in a despatch addressed the 22nd of June to Lord Bloomfield, presented as the basis of English policy. In presence of the known predisposition of the Cabinets of London and of St. Petersburg, one might admit as a fact, that more unfavourable conditions might be expected from the common intervention of the three Powers than those to which the Emperor Napoleon consented at "Villafranca.
"It is hardly necessary for me to remark that the despatch quoted by the English Minister for Foreign Affairs shows evidently that the English Cabinet regard the pending question differently from the King's Government. I think, besides, that I may consider it as a course of conduct that differs widely from the ordinary usages generally followed during a war—that one of the belligerent parties desires to be informed by the other of the intentions of the neutral Powers.
"If I am well informed, the Comte de Rechberg must, at least, by this time, be convinced that the project of mediation which it was pretended had been accepted by the three neutral Powers, and which consists of seven points, was not an English project, but a French project. At any rate, it was not till several days after the signature of the peace that we received the first news of it."
These extracts, my Lords, clearly show a difference in the policy of the Court of Prussia compared with the policy of England, as laid down in the despatch of my noble Friend the Secretary for Foreign Affairs. This is somewhat singular, for we were told that Lord John Russell would establish an intimate understanding between the Cabinets of Prussia and Eng-

1099
land. Your Lordships may remember we had a discussion in this House as to a certain speech made by the Minister for India under the present Government, who at his election boasted of the effect of the intervention of England with respect to the policy of Prussia. Not satisfied with persuading the £10 householders of Halifax that we had now got a Government which could preserve India, he boasted that he could also influence the whole of Central Europe. But, my Lords, the manner in which M. de Schmitz, in the extract I have just read, speaks of the despatch of my noble Friend (Lord John Russell) to Lord Bloomfield, shows that the noble Lord had established a complete separation in policy between ourselves and that country, with which on every ground it is our interest to be most closely allied. I hold in my hand this first despatch written by my noble Friend; I will not now repeat the impression it made on my mind, but that impression was a painful one. It has been often commented on. During a long life of official intercourse with my noble Friend, marked by community of action and private regard, I have very seldom had any differences of opinion with my noble Friend. But, I must say, the whole tone of this despatch addressed to the Court of Prussia, establishes in my mind a wide distinction between the policy which my noble Friend suggested and that which I should have thought tended to the honour, dignity, and interests of this country. I cannot help reading a passage from another despatch of my noble Friend (Lord John Russell) to Baron Scleinitz, dated July 7, in which he says,—
"Her Majesty used her utmost endeavours, consistent with peace, to maintain the faith of treaties. At the last moment Austria, by an act of supreme imprudence, began the war and invaded Piedmont. From that time everything has been changed. Austria overstepped the frontier laid down in the treaties of 1815. It could no longer be expected that those treaties would be regarded as binding by France and Sardinia. Italy has been roused to war, and is taking her part in the struggle."
It appears to me that, in the first place, there is a considerable omission to this despatch. We know that Austria was guilty of an act of imprudence. But in what did that act of imprudence consist? In giving a short notice that unless something were done by Sardinia she would consider that a cause of war had arisen. And then my noble Friend talks of Austria having commenced the war, and having invaded Piedmont.
1100
But did nothing pass between that act on the part of Austria and the invasion of Piedmont? Yes, my Lords, Austria accepted the offer of the mediation made to her by England. Austria kept back her forces for some days, because an offer of mediation was made by England; but which offer was rejected by France and Sardinia. I hold, therefore, that the statement put so concisely is not accurate—that the war arose from that single act on the part of Austria. I must also remind your Lordships, that before Austria had sent a single soldier across the Ticino, the Grand Duke of Tuscany had been dethroned through the direct intervention of the Sardinian Minister there. Massa and Carrara, too, were taken possession of by Sardinia, and the Government in those places had been overthrown. The French fleet, too, had arrived at Genoa before a single Austrian soldier had crossed the Ticino. By these acts on the part of Sardinia, the ally of France, a legitimate cause of war was created. We must recollect that one of the principal points which were to have been discussed in the proposed Congress was to find some substitute for the separate treaties for mutual defence which existed between these smaller States and Austria—but whilst they were still in existence Austria was bound in honour to consider all those violations of the rights of her weaker neighbours, on the part of Sardinia, as an unavoidable reason for declaring war. So that my noble Friend's statement that the "extreme imprudence of Austria" was the cause of the war is an error of fact. I must now state what I considered to have been an error of inference on the part of my noble Friend. He says that because the Austrians stepped over the frontier, having been provoked to war, therefore the Treaties of 1815 were abrogated, and "it was no longer to be expected that they would be regarded as binding." But, my Lords, this is not the first time that similar transactions have occurred in Italy. I remember to have taken a considerable although not an immediate part in what passed in the year 1848 and 1849. Did not Sardinia twice invade Austria during that period? Did she not in 1849, without any notice, invade Austria, and did she not meet with what she richly deserved for her most unjustifiable invasion—such a defeat as placed her entirely at the mercy of Austria? The noble Lord now at the head of the Government was then Foreign

1101
Secretary, and what was the argument he used to Austria? He said, "You must recollect that although you have been provoked, and although the conduct of Sardinia is not justifiable, yet that the settlement of that part of Italy is a part of the treaty arrangement of Europe. I, therefore, expect that you will not seize Alessandria, or any other part of the Sardinian dominions." I thought that course was dictated by good reason and sound policy. But, my Lords, I say that the feelings and policy of England on such subjects ought to be consistent and founded on some known principle. Our principles ought to be known and acknowledged, and those which we apply to one Power we ought to apply to every other. Therefore, my Lords, I say the despatch of my noble Friend contains both an error in fact and an error in reason. I must always do justice to the correct, the noble impulses of my noble Friend now at the head of Foreign Affairs; but I must tell him now, as I have told him before, that he has taken a one-sided view of the question. The information he derived from his residence in Italy was derived from a very narrow circle. They were no doubt very intellectual and clever enthusiasts, but not able to conduct such events as are now passing. They have originated revolutions before this, but they were never able to bring one to a satisfactory conclusion; and I very much fear that while I speak they are at this time liable to be overborne and displaced by that party whose influence over the masses is not, I think, correctly estimated in England—the Mazzinian party. I understand that M. Mazzini has at this moment issued a proclamation by which he is exciting the whole of Central Italy. In it he says he is glad the Sardinian commissaries are withdrawn, because now the whole people of Central Italy will be able to declare its wishes. I have only seen passages from this proclamation, because the Italian papers do not dare to print it in extenso. I believe this proclamation has produced an impression likely to be dangerous. My noble Friend alluded in his second despatch to the plan which I think then first arose of a confederated combination of the States and Cities of Italy. My noble Friend says,—
"It is doubtful, very doubtful indeed, what maybe the result of the well considered deliberations of the Tuscan people."
My information would lead me to believe that what really is doubtful is whether there could be any well-considered delibe-
1102
rations at all in that quarter. The agents of the Mazzinian party there do not desire the annexation of Central Italy with Piedmont, and the government there is still conducted in the same spirit, and not only in the same spirit, but with increased vigour in the way of intimidation. With respect to that, in my opinion, most ridiculous notion that the Grand Duke had given sealed orders to bombard Florence, I told your Lordships on the first day of the Session that I had thought it my duty, considering the impression which that report had made in this country, to apply to the highest authority to ascertain really how the matter stood, and that Prince gave me his word of honour that no such orders were ever given. I had his authority for stating that. When the allegation was latterly repeated, I was, indeed, surprised on what futile evidence that charge was made; and here, as a matter of personal justice to Signor Peruzzi, from whom I have received a letter on the subject, and who is, I believe, a very respectable gentleman, though one holding very extreme opinions, I think it right to say that what I had stated I only repeated as "currently reported" in Florence that he had at first objected to the charge as one that could not be sustained. He denies that he had any difference of opinion with his colleagues on the subject; of course he has a right to the full benefit of that denial. My correspondent had mentioned what was supposed to have been his first impulse as to his credit, and ail I meant to convey in respect of him was that he gave a too easy credence to the charge on very unsubstantial evidence. I will just read a few lines from the memorial of the Provisional Government to show on what sort of evidence this charge against the Grand Duke rests:
"There existed in the fortress of San Georgio, commonly called the Belvedere, a secret and sealed circular of general orders, sent from the General to all those in command in August in the past year. At half-past eight o'clock in the morning of the 27th of April, the Archduke Charles, second son of Leopold II., came to the above-named fortress, convoked the officers, and told them he was the bearer of a letter from the General-in-Chief (Ferrari), in which he ordered the circular to be opened already sent. The paper was opened, and it was found to contain preliminary instructions for an attack against the city. These instructions were completed by word of mouth by the Archduke Charles, who concluded by asking the officers what ammunition they had, and how and what artillery they could dispose of. The commander of the fortress with respectful firmness replied, explaining to the Archduke Charles that while he and his company

1103
would without hesitation expose their lives to protect the safety of himself and all the Royal family, they would refuse positively the idea of attacking their own citizens, guilty of nothing more than a generous sentiment of nationality that the army itself would consider it glorious to partake."
I cannot see one word in that to justify any one saying that the Grand Duke had given any such orders as have been imputed to him. The orders were general. I speak in the presence of several noble Lords who are military officers and who will, I think, bear me out when I say that it is a necessary thing to give such general orders for the conduct of the troops under certain circumstances. As a numerous mob had occupied the streets of Florence the night before, the inquiry of the Archduke Charles seems to me to have been the natural preliminary to the possible necessity for defence against armed attack. I take it the orders were general orders issued in preparation for defence. Who could ever imagine that in the month of August last—these orders were dated the 8th August—when everything was tranquil in Florence, the Grand Duke would place sealed orders in the hands of any one giving directions for such a purpose as the destruction of his capital. If there were any such orders let those who make the charge produce them. If there is anything in those general orders of the 8th of August warranting the charge that the Grand Duke had given directions to bombard Florence, I cannot understand why they should be witheld. I therefore leave this subject in your Lordships' hands, by repeating the positive contradiction on the part of the Archduke that any such orders were given. What could possibly be the motive of the Grand Duke of Tuscany to bombard the city of Florence? So much with respect to that. But I must say, from the information I have received from Florence, all goes to negative the suggestion of any such motive. And I must also say that so completely is everything forbidden to circulate there, which is contrary to the feelings and wishes of the present Government, that it is necessary to have recourse to private letters. In such a case one cannot always give names; but my information is on good authority, and from that information I learn that intimidation is resorted to to a great extent. With respect to the army—the greater part of the army that was at first under orders to return to Florence—I am told that after
1104
one detachment had arrived the Government rather distrusted the disposition of the troops; and having heard that there was a great disposition on the part of those troops to side with the Archduke, the order for their being stationed there was rescinded. Again, two Tuscan officers, Majors Bevilaiqua and Mori, have been arrested, and are at this moment confined in a fortress for speaking in public in favour of the Archduke Ferdinand; and within the last few days I hear two other officers have been arrested for speaking in a café in his favour. There is another very remarkable thing in connection with the expression of public opinion in that part of Italy. I understand that by the Election Law of 1848, the whole rural population as a class is excluded from the franchise. Your Lordships are aware that this rural population is not composed of serfs or boors, but consists of a most intelligent and well conducted class of people. The metayer system prevails. A Podere or farm is generally as much as one family can cultivate. This family often consists of several married sons with their families, who inherit the same large farmhouse and share the produce. There is no provision, if I am not much mistaken, in the election law, to admit all this large majority of those who cultivate the soil and are supported by its fruits. And if these elections are to decide upon the future fate of Central Italy, why should the qualifications to vote be so different in one Duchy and in another. In Modena the decision is to be by universal suffrage, with the conditions that the voters shall be able to read and write. It would be well if they added a third condition to the exercise of the franchise, namely, that they should know arithmetic; for if they did they would be able to draw a distinction between a people that are taxed at the rate of 5 per cent and a people that are taxed at the rate of 50 per cent. The use I would make of my knowledge of the present state of things in Italy would be to urge another argument against England mixing herself up in these differences. We have been already informed by Her Majesty's Government that if the conditions of the Treaty of Villafranca are to be adhered to the States not concerned would not agree to be called together to register them. One of the plans is to abolish all distinction between the different races in Central Italy. If such should be the decision of the assembly collected so hastily together, and under such unusual circumstances, let

1105
there at least be an opportunity given to those who have been hurried into those decisions to reconsider them. Do not let us confirm, by the solemnity of a European Congress, those decisions which I believe would be found to have been framed upon a delusion, and to have been accompanied by undue influences. I press this opinion upon your Lordships at this moment because Parliament is about to separate. The long and close experience I had of the conduct of the noble Viscount in Foreign Affairs, induced me on the first day of the Session to declare I never again would have the slightest confidence in him as Minister. I regret to entertain such an impression, having known the noble Viscount for so long a time, and believing him to be justly popular in social relations. I am not, however, conscious of entertaining any serious differences of opinion upon general questions with the other Members of the present Administration, many of whom I am glad to see for the first time seated upon the Ministerial benches. My opinions upon these questions I confess are strong, and a sense of duty impels me to express them now, feeling that this is a moment most threatening to the fate of the country. I cannot, therefore, sit down without impressing upon my noble Friends near me the necessity of taking care that during the coining recess nothing shall be done in relation to this matter without the sanction of the united Cabinet. I may remind my noble Friends of what passed at the commencement of the Session of 1852. Without referring to individuals too particularly, I may say that I hope nothing will be left to irregular action in foreign affairs. I do not wish at present to revive the recollection of events that seem to have been forgotten sooner than might have been expected, although they remain matter of public record; but my noble Friend the Foreign Secretary seems to have a different view of the conduct of individuals in connection with foreign affairs now from that which he entertained then. The noble Marquess then asked whether there was any objection to lay on the table any official communication that had been made to our Ambassador at Paris, as to the effect of the proposals transmitted to the Austrian Government.
LORD WODEHOUSEsaid, he hoped the noble Marquess would forgive him for answering the question he had put instead of the noble Earl (Earl Granville), inasmuch as the question which had been put related to
1106
the Department with which he was connected. From the Notice which the noble Marquess had given he had not anticipated that he would have gone into a very interesting but very discursive discussion on the affairs of Europe in general and Tuscany in particular, and therefore he would not follow him into that wide field; but with regard to the propositions transmitted by his noble Friend the Secretary for Foreign Affairs to the Austrian Minister, he would make a very simple statement of facts—and indeed they had already been described in "another place"—which would, he thought, dispel some of those illusions under which the noble Marquess, with others, appeared to be labouring. Some days before the conclusion of the Peace of Villafranca, the French Minister gave to his noble Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, a statement of the bases on which the Emperor of the French would be willing to treat with the Emperor of Austria. His noble Friend received those bases, but stated to the French Ambassador that, in transmitting them to the Austrian Minister, he would not attempt to offer any opinion on them, nor to give any advice with respect to them on the part of Her Majesty's Ministers. His noble Friend did not believe that the time had then arrived for making a proposition as to any terms of peace which would be likely to conduce to any lasting arrangement: his noble Friend, therefore, in placing in the hands of the Austrian Minister the paper containing these terms distinctly stated that Her Majesty's Government did not express any opinion, and did not give any advice as to their acceptance or as to any negotiations being commenced with respect to them. Count Apponyi transmitted this document immediately to the Austrian Government, and an answer was received from the Government to the effect that the terms were unacceptable; and that answer was communicated by Count Apponyi to his noble Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. His noble Friend communicated the reply which he had received to the French Ambassador; and that was the whole of the action on the part of the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs and of Her Majesty's Government with regard to those bases of peace. But, as considerable misapprehension had arisen on this subject, he might add that no communication was made by his noble Friend regarding the bases of peace given to him by the French Ambassador to either the Courts of St.

1107
Peterburg or Berlin. It was a mistake, therefore, to suppose that any bases of peace had been agreed on by the three mediating Powers. His noble Friend considered it right towards the Austrian Government, not to withhold from them these proposals in the hope that a stop might be put to the effusion of blood which at that time seemed likely to continue, and had therefore made himself the channel of communicating them to the Austrian Government, but without expressing any opinion whatever on the terms that were proposed; and he did not think impropriety of conduct could be attributed to his noble Friend by any one who was anxious to see the war brought to a termination. Having made this explanation, he might be permitted to add that, his noble Friend the Foreign Secretary communicated with Her Majesty's Legation at Vienna, and directed that an explanation should be given to Count Rechberg as to all that had taken place. That Minister received the explanation in a very friendly spirit, and stated that it was perfectly clear and satisfactory—so that he (Lord Wodehouse) was not aware that any misunderstanding now existed on the subject. As regarded the production of the paper asked for by the noble Marquess, he thought the House would agree with him that it was extremely inconvenient that any separate papers with regard to these important transactions should be produced. The peace of Villafranca was not yet concluded—the preliminaries only had been agreed to. If, hereafter, any communication of papers to Parliament should be made on the whole subject of these negotiations, no doubt those bearing on the special point to which the noble Marquess had referred would be laid on the table of the House together with the other documents. He would not follow the noble Marquess into the great number of other matters to which he had alluded, although not, strictly speaking, contained in the Question which he had put. But his noble Friend had praised very highly the neutrality which had been observed by Her Majesty's late Government. The present was not an occasion when he thought it at all necessary to canvass the different acts of the late Secretary for Foreign Affairs, who was not then in his place; but he certainly thought that if the neutrality observed by the late Government was not more conspicuous than that of his noble Friend, it certainly was not of a very strict
1108
or severe character. His noble Friend (the Marquess of Normanby) had in one part of his speech devoted himself to what he no doubt thought a most successful demolition of the Provisional Government of Tuscany. It certainly was not his intention to justify the acts or to make himself the advocate of the Provisional Government, neither did he intend to pronounce any condemnation upon it. Her Majesty's Ministers observed with complete impartiality all that was taking place in Tuscany; and it was not at all desirable that he should comment at length on acts which had only taken place within the last few days. His noble Friend had also returned to a matter which he had thought quite exhausted, namely, the statement made by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for India with regard to neutrality; but he imagined that the debate which had already taken place in the House must have satisfactorily disposed of that matter. Then after commenting on the despatch addressed to the Prussian Government as to which he thought it had been shown in a late discussion that the conduct of the present Government had not been very unlike that of the late Ministry, the noble Marquess had criticised at considerable length a despatch of Lord John Russell's, and dwelt on an expression which it contained relative to the "extreme imprudence" of the Austrians in crossing the Ticino. There, again, he would rather abstain from entering into a complete discussion of that very interesting event in the late campaign; as to how far Austria was or was not justified in taking that particular step at the moment which she did, as to how far previous provocation had been given, he should express no opinion; but he would remind the House and his noble Friend that on this point the late Government had expressed an opinion not merely as strong as that expressed by his noble Friend the present Secretary of State, but a great deal stronger. And he would say that in his opinion that expression of opinion on the part of Her Majesty's late Government was infinitely stronger than the occasion required, and one which most certainly had given considerable umbrage to the Power to which it was applied—a Power to which this country was allied, and with which it was on terms of the strictest amity. The noble Marquess had also referred to his having had placed in his hands a document which the Turin journals stated to be a proclamation of Mazzini, and to the strong terms in which

1109
the Austrian Government was condemned in certain newspapers. He must say that whatever opinion the House might form of the particular policy which was followed by Count Cavour and the Government of which he formed a distinguished member, they could not withhold their admiration from the constitutional party in Sardinia, for having been the chief instrument in counteracting those designs of the partizans of Mazzini which all right thinking persons so justly deprecated. He was quite certain that the fall of constitutional government in Sardinia would be the signal for a renewal of those attempts which had paralyzed the exertions of Italian patriots for years back, and had made all stable government in that country impossible. He did not shut his eyes to the faults of Sardinia; but his noble Friend, in giving vent to his horror of the Mazzini faction, ought to be the last man to regard with severity the acts of a Government which, whatever might be its merits or demerits, had been the instrument of establishing constitutional government in Piedmont and of inculcating constitutional maxims throughout the rest of Italy. He did not know there was any other point in the speech of the noble Marquess that he was called upon to notice, but if further information were desired he would be prepared to give it.
THE MARQUESS OF NORMANBYexplained that what he had said about the despatch of Lord John Russell was, that it was inaccurate in omitting all mention of what had occurred between the announcement of the intention of Austria to commence the war and the passage of the Ticino. He now wished to ask his noble Friend the President of the Council, whether the transmission of the French proposals to Austria was or was not the act of the Cabinet. It was a most important act, and one which he imagined would not have been done without the Cabinet being consulted.
EARL GRANVILLE: My Lords, the noble Marquess seems anxious to advise the Cabinet. I assure the noble Marquess that the Cabinet is quite aware of the responsibility which attaches to its deliberations, but then of those deliberations I beg to tell the noble Marquess it must itself have the conduct. I very much doubt whether the noble Marquess has the slightest right to ask such a question; but if it gives him the smallest satisfaction, I have no hesitation in saying that it was by the united act of Her Majesty's Cabinet
1110
that we sent the French proposals to Vienna; and that in doing so we, in my opinion, took the only proper course. When the Government of France, one of the belligerents, put into our hands the terms of peace, we should have done very wrong to refuse to forward those terms; and it would have been equally wrong if, thinking that they were unlikely to be accepted by Austria, we had adopted any course but that which Lord John Russell pursued with the entire assent of the Cabinet, placing the terms in the hands of the Austrian Minister, telling him exactly the circumstances under which they had been communicated to him, and impressing upon him that he had no advice whatever to offer to the Austrian Government with regard to them.
THE MARQUESS OF NORMANBYsaid, he had asked the last question because of the great interest felt on the subject throughout the whole Continent of Europe.

ENDOWED SCHOOLS BILL.

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  LORD CRANWORTHin moving the second reading of the Bill, briefly stated to the House the facts of the Ilminster case, and the decision of the Lords Justices, that Dissenters were not eligible as trustees for that school. From that decision an appeal was made to their Lordships which had not yet been heard. This case and others which were of a similar character had called attention to the propriety of making some alteration in the law. Under these circumstances, he and a noble Friend of his had thought of introducing some measure on the subject; but in the meantime a Bill was brought into the other House by the hon. Member for Swansea (Mr. Dillwyn) which was referred to a Select Committee, one of the most active Members of which Was the late Solicitor General, and on the part of the Government there was the Vice President of the Committee on Education, and besides them there were Lord Stanley, Sir James Graham, and several other persons whose character and station demanded respect and attention. They considered the Bill with such extreme care and attention, and altered it so much, that when it came out of the Committee there was not a clause of it remained the same. The hon. Gentleman who had charge of the Bill, in con-

  1111
  sequence, withdrew it altogether. In that state of things several persons connected with the Ilminster school, feeling that what they were fighting for was a national question, came and consulted him as to the course it was best for them to take to attain their object. He looked at the Bill as it came from the Select Committee, and it appeared to him to be a rational Bill, and only defective in one particular. The Bill first provided, that wherever in the last twenty-five years it had been the practice in any of these charities to appoint Dissenters trustees, that practice should be lawful, unless there was in the original deed of foundation something expressly forbidding it. He owned he thought that did not go far enough; because if in the Ilminster case, where the trustees were now all Churchmen, no Dissenters were appointed for the next twenty-five years, such lapse would prevent any being appointed in future; and that was the reason, as he understood, of the hon. Member withdrawing the Bill. But there was another clause which related to the children to be educated in the schools. It had not been the practice in schools of this kind to insist on the children of Dissenters going to church with the other children; but the Bill as it came from the Select Committee guarded most scrupulously against any possible abuse in this respect, for it provided that in any scheme which was to be made under the sanction of the Court for the constitution of an educational charity, it should be lawful for the Attorney General, or any person interested in the charity, to apply to the Court for its sanction, and there should then he introduced into the scheme what was called "the conscience clauses"—that if the parents of a child wished him to have the benefit of the school without being taught the doctrines of the Church of England, he might do so. Considering that this Bill had substantially received the sanction of the House of Commons, and that some legislation on the subject was urgently needed, he had ventured to reintroduce the Bill in their Lordships' House, and he trusted their Lordships would sanction its principle by reading it the second time. They ought to treat these as national institutions, and there was no reason in the world why 300 years after their establishment they should feel bound by the exact words of the founders, who, if they had lived in these days, would probably have desired that the school should be open to all. If this Bill were passed before the
  1112
  prorogation, it would be a great boon; but if not, he thought that this discussion and any expression of opinion on the part of their Lordships would have a good effect.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a
  EARL GRANVILLEagreed with the noble and learned Lord that the present state of the law on this subject was such as required amendment. The noble and learned Lord had stated what had passed in the Committee of the other House on the subject, and the general concurrence of opinion with respect to it by the members of that Committee, among whom was the right hon. Gentleman who represented the Government. The fact of the noble and learned Lord having looked over the Bill, and having brought it forward, went far to convince him that it was a Bill which it would be desirable to pass. On the other hand, it was certain to give rise to considerable discussion, and considering the late period of the Session there was not the slightest chance of passing it through the other House. Though some Dissenters were in favour of the Bill there were others who had strong objections to it in its present shape. He did not say that the expression of the opinion of the noble and learned Lord would be of no use in the matter. On the other hand, it was hardly desirable that their Lordships should be committed to a positive opinion on the Bill at present. He therefore thought the noble and learned Lord had better abandon the second reading for the present.
  THE BISHOP OF LONDONsaid, although it was now proposed that the Bill should be withdrawn from the second reading, still he thought it desirable, in reference to future legislation, that they should understand distinctly what was the meaning and intention of the measure. Speaking in his individual capacity, he fully concurred in the statement that the difficulty which had arisen in the Ilminster case had better be settled, and though it was a considerable concession on the part of the Church of England, yet he thought that that concession had better be made. He did not know that the grievance of the complainants was, after all, very great. The grievance was that certain persons had got into a position which the law did not allow them to occupy; the Judges decided that they ought not to be there and they had been compelled to withdraw from that position. That seemed hardly to be a very great grievance. He looked, he confessed, with a little suspicion on these grievances

  1113
  of their Dissenting brethren. It was often an admirable thing for a person to have a grievance, and he believed that the prosperity of many persons in the world had arisen from having got a grievance. But he did not think that their Dissenting brethren had in this instance got a good grievance; and, being dissatisfied with having so few grievances, they seemed determined to make the most of the few they had, and to get a remedy which went far beyond the grievance complained of. With respect to the present Bill, if the noble and learned Lord had confined himself to the clause which adopted the twenty-five years' prescription, he thought that there would have been no opposition to it; but the other clause seemed to demand very serious consideration. In the Petition he had laid on the table from the Society for the Promotion of Education among the Poor in the Principles of the Established Church, the petitioners stated their conviction that that particular clause was likely to lead to the destruction of their society. The noble and learned Lord in his speech treated this question as one simply concerning those old foundations made at a time when there was no Dissent in the country. Now, there was nothing in the Bill to restrict it to these old foundations. It was a Bill providing that every endowed school in the country might have this "conscience clause," as it was called, introduced into the trusts. The noble and learned Lord said that the "conscience clause" would be introduced merely when a scheme was applied for by the Attorney General; but it struck him that any single person who considered himself interested in any endowed school in the country might make it imperative on the Judges to introduce it. If so, it altered the general view of the matter very greatly, and the National Society having considered the subject with the assistance of high legal authority, with the aid of Judges of the land and others, came to the conclusion that it did appear that any person applying to the court might force this clause to be introduced into the management of any of our endowed schools. Then came the question as to what was an endowed school. A school had an endowment, he presumed, which possessed a house of the value of £2 for the schoolmaster, or which had a field given it by the clergyman of the parish. An endowed school was a school with an endowment, however small. There were 4,000 endowed schools in this country,
  1114
  and by far the overwhelming majority of the endowments varied from £5 to £10 a year. Now, as no school could be conducted for £5 or £10, there were added to these endowments very large subscriptions, on which depended the whole usefulness of the schools. A great number of these subscriptions was raised in connection with the Society for the Education of the Poor in the Principles if the Established Church, and great anxiety and confusion would be the result of the 1,500 endowed schools in union with that society should come under the provisions of the present Bill. It might be asked what great harm would follow, as the proposition was merely that that should be done by law which was done already in many cashes voluntarily—namely, the introduction of the children of Dissenters to the schools without their being compelled to learn the formularies of the Church of England. But it was one thing to do a matter of that kind voluntarily, and another to have it forced on them compulsorily by Act of Parliament; and the members of the society which he was called to represent on this occasion, having seriously considered the subject, believed that if the Bill passed exactly in its present shape, it would create such alarm among their subscribers—many of whom were persons who held strong opinions on the subject of Church authority—that there really would be an end of the Society. He believed that his noble and learned Friend had no intention in the slightest degree to interfere with the schools of the National Society, but this only showed the inconvenience of introducing such a measure at a period when it could not be properly considered. The clergy of the Church of England would like to have the subject more completely examined, and the important questions connected with it taken more fully into consideration by their Lordships' House. If it were desirable that all the schools in England—for it was of no use talking about endowed schools only—should have what was called a "conscience clause" introduced into their management, by all means let it be done; but let it be done after a very careful and deliberate consideration of the whole question. This was a most important question. He believed that no fewer than thirty-five petitions had been presented by the noble and learned Lord for removing these grievances, but from what he had seen in the organ of a certain society for agitating

  1115
  the country about the grievances of Dissenters, by giving lectures and getting up petitions, he did not think these grievances were so great as they might at first sight appear to be from the number of the petitions; and however great the grievance might be, the remedy applied to the malady was exactly one of those which were calculated to put the patient in a far more robust state of health than he enjoyed before the malady assailed him.
  LORD KINGSDOWNsaid, he did not affect to know what effect the introduction of this Bill would have on the other House of Parliament, but he thought it would be far better for the noble and learned Lord at the present moment to content himself with the expression of opinion which he had elicited, and not to attempt to press the matter on Parliament during the present Session.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR, while concurring in the expediency of not taking the second reading of the Bill, could not help expressing pain at some of the sentiments which had fallen from the right rev. Prelate with regard to his Dissenting brethren. As regarded the Bill itself he believed it had received the fullest and best consideration by the most learned and able men representing both sides of the question in the other House. It was true that the wishes of the deceased donor should be respected; but he believed that if the founders of these schools were alive now, they would be willing to accede to the proposition now made. But, under all the circumstances, he would advise his noble and learned Friend not to press the second reading of the Bill. Before he sat down he must express a hope that the sentiments of the right rev. Prelate were not those generally entertained in the Church. He himself thought that legislation on this subject was indispensable; for if the law remained unaltered, children might be prevented from attending any of these schools unless they conformed strictly to all the rites of the Church of England; and it would be a cruel thing that Dissenters should be prevented from having the full benefit of those institutions which were meant for all.
  LORD REDESDALEthought that the Lord Chancellor had not quite accurately represented what the right rev. Prelate had said. He (Lord Redesdale) understood him, not to object to the principle, but only to some parts of the measure; one of his objections being that there was no definition of what was meant by the
  1116
  term endowed schools. This phrase, if unlimited by any definition, would apply to many modern schools, and in reference to which a "conscience clause" might be applied for; and with respect to the observation of the Lord Chancellor, that deceased donors, if now alive, would not object to the proposed change, it must be borne in mind that the Bill at once affected living donors. He thought that there was in the Bill a great deal of matter which would form a good foundation for a future measure, but that the details were faulty.
  LORD CRANWORTHbelieved that he had no cause for regret in consequence of having brought this matter before the House, for he thought that there was not an imaginary, but a real practical grievance, pressing hardly upon a great many persons. Under the circumstances, and with this general expression of opinion in favour of the principle of the Bill he did not think it necessary to proceed further with the measure during the present Session.
  Motion (by Leave of the House) withdrawn; and Bill (by Leave of the House) withdrawn.
  House adjourned at half-past Seven o'clock, till To-morrow, half-past Ten o'clock.