Lords Sitting of 10 February 1860

ANNEXATION OF SAVOY AND NICE TO FRANCE.—QUESTION.
THE MARQUESS OF NORMANBYsaid, he wished to obtain an explanation from the noble Earl (Earl Granville) relative to an
798
apparent discrepancy between the statement of the English and French Governments as to what had passed on the subject of the annexation of Savoy and Nice to France. It was only last night it came to his knowledge that a general impression had been created in Europe as to the discrepancy and difference between these two accounts, and it was alike desirable and necessary that the earliest opportunity should be given to Her Majesty's Government to furnish some explanation as to what had been alleged, not apparently authoritatively, but certainly and beyond doubt with the sanction of the late Minister for Foreign Affairs of France. When, on a previous occasion, he (the Marquess of Normanby) brought the Motion relative to the annexation of Savoy and Nice before their Lordships, he alluded to a paragraph, containing a semi-official announcement, in a French ministerial paper, as to the communication that had been made in the other House of Parliament by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. It was stated that, as far as the communication went, they did not complain, but that at the same time it was not complete, official communications having taken place between the French and English Governments on the subject subsequent to the month of July. This statement was probably made on the part of the existing Government; but at an earlier period most of these transactions passed under the administration of the late Foreign Secretary. A letter from Paris in the Independance Belge, with which Count Walewski, the French Minister, was known to communicate in that shape, stated that the account given in this country was partial and incomplete. Now, in this country we should never think of attaching the importance that public opinion abroad attached to these sort of communications; but the French Minister, as well as ex-Ministers in France, were apt to communicate in a somewhat authoritative tone on public transactions in letters to newspapers not identified by any bonâ fide signature. The French Chambers had no tribune—they had not even a number of red benches with a throne at one end and a gallery at the other, and they were compelled to have recourse to this mode of justification. The letter or communication that had appeared in the journals represented that Count Walewski did so and so; that the explanations given in this country were not complete, and that at a later period a communication was

799
made by Count Walewski to Lord Cowley, that in consequence of the interference—the active interference—of England for the purpose of procuring the annexation of the Central States of Italy to Piedmont, the Emperor of the French had thought it necessary to revert to the intention of annexing Savoy and Nice to France. He was not going to pronounce any opinion on this new application of the "logic of facts." The communication went on to state that no doubt what transpired between Count Walewski and Lord Cowley would be communicated to the Government of England; and the letter, speaking in the name of Count Walewski, stated that whenever the matter was presented to both Houses of Parliament, it would be found that these circumstances were accurately stated by him. He would not now pronounce an opinion on the subject, but should be glad to hear that no such circumstance had occurred; because if there was no contradiction, it showed that what was stated in the other House was not a complete account of the whole transaction. Should this statement prove to be correct, and should there have been such a communication between the two Governments at a later period other than that stated by Lord John Russell, the public would not have been in full possession of the facts. If what Count Walewski is supposed to have stated, or to have authorized some one to state, on the subject was correct, there was no person, however much inclined to retain their notions of the disinterested patriotism of the King of Sardinia, who could doubt that the French Government would never have spoken in that way of their projects unless they were already sure, by something that had passed before, that the King of Sardinia was ready to agree to barter away his ancient hereditary dominions and the affections of his subjects for the possessions of another Power, which perhaps were of more value and more gratifying to his personal ambition. In conclusion, he wished to ask whether it was true that the French Government, during the administration of Count Walewski, made any communication to Lord Cowley on the subject of the annexation of Savoy and Nice, subsequent to those which had been stated to have taken place in the other House of Parliament by the Foreign Secretary; and if so, at what period such communication came to the knowledge of the British Government; and whether, supposing any such communication
800
to have taken place, any allusion was made to the policy of the British Government in Central Italy, and as regarded the annexation of Savoy and Nice?
EARL GRANVILLEsaid, he could not enter into the statements in an anonymous letter in a Belgian newspaper, but he had no hesitation in telling the noble Marquess that Her Majesty's Government had received no official communication of any such communication having been made by Count Walewski to Lord Cowley. At the same time he was not in a position to deny that some conversation might have passed on the subject between the late French Minister for Foreign Affairs and Lord Cowley.
THE MARQUESS OF NORMANBYthought he had laid the ground for explanation, if it so happened that the Foreign Minister of this country refused, or did not consider it consistent with his duty, to present an official communication of what passed between the two Governments; and the account which was offered instead of documents did not agree with the statement of the other party to this transaction, it would be satisfactory to have stated the final purport and effect of any communication that passed between the Ambassador at Paris and the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs on the subject of the annexation of Savoy and Nice.
EARL GREYremarked that his noble Friend (Earl Granville) had told them that there had been no official communication between the French Minister and the British Ambassador at Paris; and he should like to know whether by that their Lordships were to understand merely that there was no written communication—because he for one believed, and he thought their Lordships would agree with him, that any communication of such great public importance made verbally by the French Minister for Foreign Affairs to the British Ambassador was an official communication. Therefore he wished to know whether it was in that sense only that Her Majesty's Government were not informed that this annexation was in contemplation.
LORD WODEHOUSEsaid, his noble Friend did not mean to rest his answer on there being no written statement. A communication might he made without its being written. The fact was, that there were no despatches, no communication at all of a formal character between the two Governments between the times stated by his noble Friend the Secretary for Fo-

801
reign Affairs, when he made his statement in July last to the House of Commons, and a recent time, when some further communications had taken place between the French Government and Her Majesty's Government on the subject of Savoy. When his noble Friend said he could not deny that some conversation had passed between Lord Cowley and Count Walewski, all his noble Friend meant to convey was, that between July and January the subject may have been occasionally alluded to in conversation between Count Walewski and Lord Cowley, but there was no official communication of the views of the French Government made by Count Walewski to Lord Cowley, which the latter was bound to transmit to his Government. The subject was, so to speak, dropped between July and January, and his noble Friend the Foreign Secretary had stated most accurately all that had passed on the subject.
EARL GREYsaid, it had been rumoured that a distinct warning had been given by Count Walewski, that in the event of a certain line of conduct being followed by this country, the measure for the annexation of Savoy would be pressed by the French Government. Was he to understand that such a state of things was generally unfounded?
LORD WODEHOUSEsaid, that he did not mean to assert that there had been no mention in conversation between Count Walewski and Lord Cowley of the annexation of Savoy from July, when the communication was made to which his noble Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs had alluded in the other House, up to the date of the recent communications between the two Governments on this subject; but that nothing had passed which had been considered by Lord Cowley as matter for a despatch to his Government, and it was therefore strictly correct, as had been stated by his noble Friend (Earl Granville), that no official communications had passed between the two Governments on the subject of Savoy since last July till very recently.
THE MARQUESS OF NORMANBYsaid, he knew Lord Cowley well enough to be convinced that he would have dealt with anything communicated by Count Walewski as a matter of diplomatic communication. He begged to draw the attention of the Under Secretary of State to the fact that as yet there had been no statement with reference to what was alleged to have
802
passed between Count Walewski and Lord Cowley which might not, in his opinion, if the report were correct, be made the subject of communication. The only denial his noble Friend had made was, that Lord Cowley did not consider any statement made by Count Walewski of a nature to make it a matter of official communication; and if so, the statement attributed to Count Walewski might be erroneous, as far as Lord Cowley was concerned, since it was impossible that a person of Lord Cowley's experience must not have felt that a communication or conversation of a probable change of policy on such an important point notified by the French Minister and based on the objections felt to the conduct of his own Government, was subject-matter for immediate official report on his own part.

ST. GEORGE'S-IN-THE-EAST.

  PETITION.
  LORD BROUGHAM presented a Petition from the Rev. Bryan King, M.A., Rector of St. George's-in-the-East, complaining of interruption of Divine Service in the Church of St. George's-in-the-East, and praying for relief. With the petitioner he had no acquaintance whatever, but he had been asked to present this petition, and of the truth of its statements he could have no knowledge. But the party had a right to be heard. He should therefore desire that the clerk at the table might read it. This was done. The petitioner, after stating that he had been rector of the parish, which contained a population of some 50,000, for sixteen years, related in some detail what appeared to him the causes of the disturbances in the church, laying particular stress, as an exciting cause, on the appointment of a Sunday afternoon lecturer by the parishioners in 1859. He adverted to the proceedings in the Court of Queen's Bench, arising out of that appointment, and to the unsuccessful mediation of the Bishop of London with a view to the suppression of the disturbances. He also referred to the circumstance of his having had recourse to the Chief Commissioner of Police, Sir Richard Mayne, and to the Home Secretary, to interfere to protect him in the discharge of his sacred duty; that that interference had not been equal to the emergency; and he prayed the House to take such steps as might seem necessary to secure him and those who assisted him

  803
  in his ministrations from personal violence, and the celebration of Divine Service from interruption. The noble and learned Lord expressed a hope that the Government had made arrangements for putting an end to the repeated desecration of the Church of St. George's-in-the-East and the interruption of the services, which had become an intolerable nuisance to the neighbourhood, and was offensive to the moral feelings of the whole community. His opinion was that the difficulty of dealing with this nuisance was not insuperable, if Sir Richard Mayne would direct the police to enter the church and watch and control the conduct of the disturbers and their tools during the service. At all events the Acts of Parliament should be put in force. He had no doubt the course he recommended was the right one, and that the law, as it now stood, was sufficient for the suppression of the disturbances.
  Petition read, and ordered to lie on the Table.

DIVINE SERVICE AT PUBLIC THEATRES.

  NOTICE POSTPONED.
  VISCOUNT DUNGANNON,who had a notice on the paper,
  "To call Attention to the Performance of Divine Service at Sadlers Wells and other Theatres by Clergymen of the Church of England on Sunday Evenings; and to move a Resolution, that such Services, being highly irregular and inconsistent with Order, are calculated to injure rather than advance the Progress of sound religious Principles in the Metropolis and throughout the Country;"
  intimated that in consequence of a suggestion that had been made to him, and owing to the interest attached to the proceedings in the other House that evening, he should postpone until Friday, February 24th, his Notice for calling the attention of their Lordships to the performance of Divine Service at Sadler's Wells, and other theatres, by clergymen of the Church of England on Sunday evenings, and concerning which he proposed to move a Resolution to the effect that such services, being highly irregular and inconsistent with order, are calculated to injure rather than advance the progress of sound religious principles in the metropolis and throughout the country. It was a matter of the most serious importance, both as regarded the interests of true religion and the stability of the Church in this country. It was a question
  804
  on which he thought there ought to be the fullest and freest discussion, both on the part of their Lordships generally, and particularly the right rev. Bench of Bishops; and he therefore would postpone his Motion to the 24th February.
  LORD PORTMANtrusted the noble Lord would reconsider his determination to bring this matter forward for discussion between this and the 24th February. No topic was more calculated to disturb the tranquillity and equanimity of their Lordships' House, and he trusted he would reconsider whether it was wise to raise a discussion on the subject.
  VISCOUNT DUNGANNON: I am bound distinctly to state that in bringing forward this Motion I conceive I am doing nothing more than making use of my privilege as an independent Peer of Parliament, and that I am endeavouring to discharge my duty as a sincere and honest Churchman; and nothing can induce me to withdraw it.
  THE MARQUESS OF WESTMEATHthought the subject altogether had better be left in the hands of the right rev. Prelate of the diocese of London, who, by his great good sense, and the judicious exercise of the powers entrusted to him, had attracted the good feeling and admiration of all the members of the Church of England. It might be safely left in his hands, and he trusted that the Motion would not be persevered in.
  VISCOUNT DUNGANNONrepeated that he could not withdraw his Motion.
  THE EARL OF RODENconcurred in the expediency of not bringing forward the subject for discussion. It involved very delicate questions which would be far better dealt with by the Bishops. He thought it had better be withdrawn.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORobserved that if in bringing this Motion forward, it could be shown that its object was to deal with anything in the shape of irreverence or breach of decorum, or anything of which a good Christian had a right to complain, the House and the country would be much obliged to the noble Lord for calling their attention to it and animadverting upon it; but if these services were conducted with piety, propriety, devotion, and decorum, he thought there was no reason why they should be dealt with or interfered with.
  THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURYsaid, he had only to express an opinion in unison with that of the noble Lord who suggested the withdrawal of the Motion. He felt convinced that the noble Viscount

  805
  who had brought the subject before the House was solely actuated by zeal for religion and reverence of the Church. At the same time it must be borne in mind that if the new system merely attracted by its novelty and curiosity, then alterations would soon cease, and the whole practice would come to a natural end. If, on the contrary, the system was founded on other grounds—was productive of good, and likely to benefit those who greatly needed benefit—he was sure the House would be unwilling to interfere or place an obstacle in the way.
  THE BISHOP OF LONDONsaid, as the noble Marquess had made allusion, in connection with this movement, to himself, he might state that in considering this question he had felt it to be a difficult and a delicate one, but that he had in no respect interfered with it in one way or the other. What had been done had been done by individuals on their own responsibility. He confessed that when the movement was first mentioned it appeared to him to be a sort of incongruity to have services in such places, and he privately expressed an opinion with the view of advising the clergy to be cautious in the matter. It was a very delicate and difficult question, and one on which he was unwilling at present to express an opinion. By doing so he might prevent clergymen from that which in their consciences they felt bound to do. Therefore neither he nor his right rev. Brother of Winchester, in whose diocese the same practices had taken place, had expressed either approbation or disapprobation of the movement.
  VISCOUNT DUNGANNONsaid, he had listened with great attention to the suggestions that had emanated from one he so highly respected as the Archbishop of Canterbury, but he felt a conviction in his own mind that these proceedings were utterly at variance with decency and order, and that therefore he had a duty to discharge from which he would not shrink.
  House adjourned at a quarter before Six o'clock, to Monday next, Eleven o'clock.