Lords Sitting of 22 July 1861

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—3a East India Council, &c.; Piers and Harbours; Turnpike Trusts Arrangements.
Royal Assents.—Boundaries of Burghs Extension (Scotland) Act Amendment; Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes (Ireland); Inclosure (No. 2); Local Government Supplemental; Transfer of Stocks and Annuities; Poor Assessments (Scotland); London Coal and Wine Dues Continuance; Queensland Government.

DUCHY OF MODENA—MOTION FOR DESPATCHES.
THE MARQUESS OF NORMANBY,in moving, pursuant to notice, that an Address be presented to Her Majesty for Copies or Extracts of any Despatches relating to the Affairs of the Duchy of Modena, from Her Majesty's Ministers accredited to the Courts of Central Italy, during the years 1855, 1856, 1857, and 1858, said, he purposed to extend the terms of his Motion so as to include copies or extracts of any Letter written by Mr. Walton, Her Ma-
1248
jesty's Consul in the district of Massa Carrara, with regard to the state of that Duchy. When he first gave notice of this Motion he certainly was very little prepared for the consequences of his attempting to explain the motives and intentions with which he brought the subject forward, or that allusion should have been made, most unusually and irregulary, to the statement which he had felt it his duty to make in giving notice of this Motion. A grave accusation having been put forward on the authority of a Minister of the Crown (Mr. Gladstone), to the effect that orders had been given for the execution of a person contrary to law, in the Duchy of Modena, and that statement having been circulated throughout Europe, he had thought it but fair to give to the colleague of the right hon. Gentleman notice that he was prepared completely to contradict those charges. He also thought the right hon. Gentleman himself ought to have the opportunity of assenting or dissenting from his statement. But when he rose for the purpose of making an explanation with this object he had been much surprised at hearing sounds which were by no means usual in their Lordships' House from a certain number of noble Lords opposite connected with the Government. Thinking it by no means fair that a Prince who had been driven from his country and his throne by the simultaneous attacks of the large armies of Frances and Sardinia, and who had chosen to retire from his own dominions rather than expose his small body of faithful native troops to certain destruction, should be exposed entirely without defence to attacks such as he had reffered to, and believing also, that, as the representative of Her Majesty during the period at which those atrocities were alleged to have taken place it was but right that the House should receive an explanatory statement at his hands, he felt compelled by a sense of duty to state what the facts really were. But when he endeavoured to make that explanation, no sympathy was felt it was imperative upon him to discharge, nor for the Prince who had been so cruelly wronged. Subsequently he put himself into communication with the right hon. Gentleman, and in the course of the correspondence, with which he should have to trouble their Lordships, he thought he had succeeded in convincing him that the question raised was not merely the answer which might be given in one House to debates in

1249
the other, but whether a Minister of the Crown, in that responsible position, ought to be allowed to circulate throughout Europe a charge with regard to the Duke of Modena which official documents would show to be entirely unfounded. If the right hon. Gentleman had answered that communication in the spirit in which he felt certain one of their Lordships would have replied to it, he should have had very little to say; but so far was that from being the case that the right hon. Gentleman actually returned to the charge and renewed the insinuations. Though the right hon. Gentleman possessed singular facility of expression, and always conveyed an impression favourable to his views to the assembly which he was addressing, all the reference which he had been able to find in the papers of the notice taken by the right hon. Gentleman of this correspondence was in the following terms:—"The right hon. Gentleman vindicated his former statement with regard to the Duke of Modena." The right hon. Gentleman called the publication from which he had quoted a "book," and said that it was as accessible to any other Member of the House of Commons as to himself. He must have made that statement in entire oblivion of proofs which he (the Marquess of Norman by) had supplied to him that such was not the case. Since that statement was made a gentleman connected with the Duke of Modena had received from one of the Ministers of that Prince a letter, in which he said—
"The book which has served as the text of all accusations is not yet my possession, because it appears that the authors, while they sent it round to their friends, took very good care to prevent its falling into the hands of those who, having full knowledge of the facts, could have had no difficulty in refuting them. My bookseller has not yet been able to procure a copy; and a bookseller at Leipsic, who advertises the book in his catalogue, and to whom I wrote sixteen days ago, has not yet sent a reply."
It is evident that this must have been the case, because, judging from the extracts quoted by Mr. Gladstone, which was all that he knew of the book, the inhabitants of Modena would never have listened to such an accusation as that with reference to Granaj, well knowing that during the reign of the Duke but few persons, and those all of mature age and convicted of atrocious crimes, had been executed; and as to the charge of dealing improperly with prisoners, they would have known that it was founded upon the establishment of a new reformatory
1250
prison, to which persons confined by the correctional police were transferred, where they were taught trades and paid wages, and the effect of which had been to reduce theft and petty offences in the proportion of one-third, or from 2,700 some years ago, to 1,800 now. He must trouble the House by reading the correspondence which had passed between himself and Mr. Gladstone on this subject. The day after he was compelled to postpone his Motion he wrote to the right hon. Gentleman to this effect—
"Hamilton Lodge, July 9, 1861.
"Dear Mr. Gladstone,—When I found myself obliged last night to postpone my Motion, and could only fix it for a distant day, I stated that I much regretted the delay, as I could positively disprove the calumnies injuriously affecting the character of the Duke of Modena, the person attacked in the publication to which I should refer. I added that if 'any one anywhere' had given additional publicity to groundless charges I was sure that when he heard the truth he would be the first to express his regret that he had been deceived by those whom he now found unworthy of credit. In obedience to the somewhat capricious observance in this particular instance of the strict rules of order required by some of your colleagues, I stated the case hypothetically; but I am sure you would not the less feel the responsibility of the charges you have distinctly made, and, if convinced that some further step on your part is required, all must agree that the sooner it is taken the better. Your are probably aware that the object of the Commission from whom the publication emanated was to collect and give to the world garbled extracts from the confidential correspondence between the Duke and his private secretary, to obtain which the desks of both had been rifled. I am told by a trust worthy person acquainted with all the circumstances of the case that, in order to produce an unfavourable impression abroad (for the book was little circulated where the facts were known), this Commission falsified the chronological order of the documents, perverted their sense, adulterated their substance, and the whole product of their labours became a work of false suggestions, of fraud, and of forgery. I do not expect you to adopt that view from any statement of mine. I have in my hands ample materials for contradicting every one of the seven charges, which you made your own by adoption; but I think, if I can give you the means of satisfying yourself that the most odious charge is a malignant falsehood on the part of those who imposed it upon you, will feel that not much credit can be given to the minor allegations, which are mostly mere matter of inference. You are reported to have stated distinctly, 'A young man of seventeen, of the name of Granaj, of Carrara, was found guilty of murder, or manslaughter. The law of Modena does not permit capital punishment under the age of twenty-one. After the trial the Duke of Modena sent forth an edict declaring that, notwithstanding the law, the young man should be executed.' Now, no such edict ever existed; no man of the name of Granaj was ever tried for murder, therefore, none such was ever executed. On examining the notes of the presiding Judge General Gentile, it is found that a cer-

1251
tain Antonio Granaj, aged 17, was imprisoned for two days for refusing to give evidence; but I understand that there in no trace of a criminal process of any kind at that time against any person of that name. There is a striking fact bearing upon the impossibility of the truth of that charge—that during the whole of the Duke's reign of thirteen years there have been but five cases of capital punishment, all of persons of mature age, and for atrocious murders. Great care was taken not to circulate these infamous calumnies where there was any fear of contradiction. The Duke of Modena never heard of these charges till he read your speech, and, I am informed, exclaimed with honest indignation as to this particular charge, 'If this were true I should feel myself morally guilty of murder.' His Royal Highnesss may well think he has a right to complain that a Minister of the British Crown should make such a charge without taking any previous pains to ascertain the truth. You will, therefore, excuse me for reminding you that there is a very easy method to put yourself in a position to do tardy justice to the Duke of Modena. You can get the Foreign Office to telegraph to Mr. Walton, Her Majesty's Consul at Carrara, and ask these simple questions—'Was any man of the name of Granaj ever convicted of murder within your recollection? Were more than five persons ever executed during the whole of the Duke of Modena's reign?' You will see that I am very confident as to the authenticity of my information, and all I ask of you is thus to test it. If you do so I am convinced that in a few hours you will be in a position to do justice to the upright and unfortunate Prince you have wronged in the place where the injury was inflicted. And I am sure that you will feel that he does not the less deserve strict justice at your hands because he is utterly defenceless since he was driven from his dominions by the overwhelming power of the arms of France and Sardinia.

"Yours faithfully,
"NORMANBY."
To this Mr. Gladstone replied—
"11, Carlton Terrace, July 9, 1861. "Dear Lord Normanby,—I have just received your note, and in reply I cannot admit that, as at present advised, I have done wrong to the Duke of Modena. I have not made a single charge except on the authority of published documents, construing them to the best of my ability. These documents had been before the world for nearly two years, I think, at the time I cited them, and their authenticity had never, to my knowledge, been disputed. Such being the case, it was, I think, my duty to assume them to be authentic. Nor, indeed, do I gather from your note that it will now be alleged they are forgeries. If I have misunderstood them, and misstated their natural meaning, then I have done wrong, and upon being convinced of it will express my regret with a strength of language proportionate to the gravity of the charge which may have been made in error. According to my confident recollection I did not state that Granaj was executed. What I believe I stated, and what I think the document strictly justifies, was that the law was altered ex post facto so as to include his crime, and I contrasted this proceeding with another, in which certain criminals appeared to be denied the benefit of an ex post facto mitigation, which had been decreed, I think, between their conviction and their appre-
1252
hension. If this and other documents are forged, no words can be strong enough to denounce the baseness of such an act. If they are not, I believe you will not shake an atom of my statements of facts, nor do I think much can be said against the colour that I gave them. Will you permit me to express my regret that the task of vindicating the Duke of Modena does not devolve upon one or other of the very zealous men who uphold in the House of Commons opinions on Italian affairs resembling those of your Lordship? I venture to think the practice of answering in one House speeches made in another so exceptionable, that I have never on any occasion adopted it, and do not foresee that I ever shall. I will read your Lordship's letter to Lord Wodehouse, who had possession of my papers; but I doubt whether he ought to make inquiry upon an isolated question until we know the whole of the statements which are about to be made, and into which we have no opportunity afforded us of inquiring.
"I remain, dear Lord Normanby,
"Very faithfully yours,
"W. E. GLADSTONE."
On the 10th of July he wrote to the right hon. Gentleman—
"Dear Mr. Gladstone,—There is only one point in your letter to which I feel it necessary at once to call your attention. You state 'According to my confident recollection I did not state that Granaj was executed.' I read this sentence with a surprise which I am sure will be shared by everyone who has seen the reports of your speech, either in the most authentic records we have here, or in the best translations in the foreign papers. In all these identical words appear, 'After the trial of Granaj, the Duke of Modena sends forth an edict that, notwithstanding the law, the young man should be executed.' And here you are supposed to have stopped. Now, you must feel that, if any one else had used these words, the inevitable impression on your mind would have been that the sentence had been carried into effect; unless these words were added, 'I must admit that no execution took place.' I feel certain that all those who heard you looked upon this execution as the gravamen of your charges. When you know from me that the Duke of Modena shared, in this respect, the universal impression as to the obvious meaning of your words; when you heard that he indignantly used this expression, 'If this were true, I should feel that I was morally guilty of murder;' I appeal to your sense of justice whether you should lose twenty-four hours before publicly declaring that you are now aware that no such execution ever took place? This is not a question as to answering in one House any debating speech which was made in the other. It is simply this, whether a Minister of the Crown should allow an accusation to be circulated throughout Europe, in his name, of 'moral murder' against an exiled Prince with whom his Sovereign was always on terms of friendly alliance, and this, too, after that Minister disclaims the interpretation of his words on which the charge is founded. All other questions raised by the selections from this book which are coupled with your name throughout Europe may well be reserved till I bring on my Motion. Having been the Queen's representative at Modena during most of the years to which those charges refer I feel it my special duty to re-establish the truth, and I

1253
shall call for my periodically-renewed reports of the state of Modena, that they may be judged side by side with the selections you have made from a publication founded, as it appears, on garbled extracts or the alleged substance of stolen private documents never seen by any but the compilers.
"Yours faithfully,
"NORMANBY."
Mr. Gladstone sent the following answer:—
"Downing Street, July 10, 1861.
"Dear Lord Normanby,—I cannot undertake to state, as you require, within twenty-four hours, that I 'am aware that Granaj was not executed.' First, because what you stated in your letter yesterday is wholly at variance with the printed document; and you do not inform me, in reply to my letter, that that document is falsified or forged. Secondly, because I have recently been told that Granaj was executed, and, though I do not absolutely assume this to be correct, yet I cannot certainly assert the contrary. I have no doubt the Duke of Modena speaks what he believes to be true, but one of the curses adhering to certain systems of Government is, that the denial of publicity to the subject places the Sovereign in the hands of Ministers, and each class of governing agents in the power of those who are below them. I do not believe the King of Naples knew a fifth part of the horrors that were perpetrated in his kingdom. I am not a little astonished to be challenged, after five months of anxious and varied business have intervened—I mean, not to have been challenged before if I was challenged at all—upon the accuracy of a particular expression, for which I am not responsible and which I have never read. I will, however, investigate that matter as well as I can by comparison of reports and let you know the result. Meantime I re-state the charge which I meant to make, and which I believe I did make. It was this, that while the benefit of ex post facto mitigatory legislation was denied to certain criminals capital punishment was by ex post facto legislation made applicable to the crime of a certain youth named Granaj. I state this thus plainly that you may be able to affirm or to deny it, and to apprise me whether the published document from which I spoke is or is not falsified or forged. It is surely grave enough to demand attention.
"I remain, dear Lord Normanby, faithfully yours,
"W. E. GLADSTONE."
To that he merely replied that after the right hon. Gentleman's last letter it was quite useless to continue the correspondence, and that he reserved the whole case of the Duke of Modena for his Motion in the House of Lords. After that he received the following letters from Mr. Gladstone:—
"July 11, 1861.
"Dear Lord Normanby,—I have now consulted all the accessible reports of the passage in my speech to which you have referred, and, though I cannot remember my words, I think the fair presumption is that I said the Duke issued an edict for the execution of the youth Granaj. What I ought to have said was that the Duke issued an edict ex post facto, bringing the crime of that youth within the category to which capital punish-
1254
ment was applicable. I am most ready to explain without delay this difference, and to express my regret for having stated, as the meaning of the edict, without any qualification, what, though I might have argued it was the intention of the paper, was not its necessary import. But I am desirous in doing this to do all that may be right. Is there more which, from the contents of the paper itself, I ought to say? That there may be no doubt on the subject I send you a copy of it. If it is within your knowledge that in any other respect I have mistaken the meaning of it, I am most ready to be corrected.
"Yours faithfully, W. E. GLADSTONE."
On the 12th of July he wrote to Mr. Gladstone this letter in answer to his of the 11th containing the copy of what he still erroneously called an edict—
"Hamilton Lodge, July 12th, 1861.
"Dear Mr. Gladstone,— I received last night, just before I was obliged to go out, your announcement that you had convinced yourself that you must have said that 'the Duke of Modena had issued an edict for the execution of Granaj, and that you were ready to express your regret on that point;' and I have also to thank you for inviting me to say whether there is any other statement connected with this charge in which I consider you to have been in error, as you are anxious to do all 'that is right.' For this I give you implicit credit. I shall, therefore, in as few words as possible (since I quite feel with you the importance of the explanation being made without delay), give you my opinion with the candour your desire. After your avowal of the general opinion which you feel must have been derived from your reported words as to the execution of Granaj, I have no doubt your feelings will induce you to express yourself satisfactorily as to having been unfortunately the means of propagating throughout Europe so cruel a charge. And here I would willingly leave this point but for a phrase in your letter of the 10th:— 'I have recently been told that Granaj was executed.' It was this apparent willingness to revert to a charge which I believed to have been disclaimed which induced me in my note of yesterday morning to declare as useless any further correspondence on the subject. All I wish now to say is that I trust you will not hereafter place any reliance on the statements of the person, whoever he may be, who attempted to palm upon you this wanton falsehood. Now, without stopping to quote the words of your letter, for which I have not time, I regret to have to tell you that what you think you ought to have said is still far removed from a correct statement of the facts of the case as gathered accurately from the papers you quote. In the first place, the paper you send me is not an edict that was ever published; both its form and its substance show that it could not be. It is merely a minute of the Duke's, written and countersigned by his private secretary, which, after the Revolution, was stolen from the cabinet of that secretary, and used for their own purposes by the Piedmontese Provisional Government. This was the form in which his Royal Highness conveyed his confidential instructions to his departmental Ministers. That minute, addressed to the Minister of Justice, points out some alterations in the new criminal code. If it had been a published edict it must have been countersigned by that Minister. In the

1255
proposed amendment of the code then under consideration the monstrous crime committed by this Granaj in the year 1855 makes his Royal Highness think desirable some further alterations with regard to the crimes to be excepted in the future code. Now, so far from justifying the assertion that the Duke intended to make an ex post facto law, it proves directly the contrary, as by the first paragraph the Duke distinctly adopts the inadequate sentence against Granaj as prescribed by law. Before I went out last night I made a literal translation of the documents you sent me, which you will see cannot be otherwise construed. Therefore, in answer to your appeal as to what you ought to do, I should say, first, as to the charge of the execution of Granaj, act according to your own feelings; secondly, admit that there is no proof that the Duke ever published an edict as to the case of Granaj; thirdly, explain that the minute you have seen has no one character of an ex post facto law. I send you my translation; I am sure it is correct.
"Yours faithfully,
"NORMANBY."
This was the translation of the document to which he referred—
"To the Minister of Grace and Justice.
"Seeing the atrocious case of the assassination committed by a certain Granaj of Carrara; seeing that the sentence relative to it is based on the local statute, that the assassin cannot be condemned to death because he has not attained the age of 21 years; seeing that it is not in the project of the new Criminal Code to make any other exceptions upon this point except the crimes of sacrilege and high treason, we ordain that such exception applicable to the two crimes here above cited shall be extended to all kinds of premeditated homicide, or committed without that adequate provocation which might be pleaded as such.
"FRANCESCO.
"Dottore CARLO SARESI, Segretario di Gabinetto.
"August, 1855."
"11, Carlton Terrace, July 12, 1861.
"Dear Lord Normanby,—I will endeavour to get at the bottom of this Granaj case as far as the whole of the printed documents will enable me, and I will explain to the full extent which the evidence will warrant it, either to-day or Monday, as I may be able. Those who told me that Granaj was executed did not state it as final or authoritative information; and what appears probable, as far as I have yet gone, is that he was sentenced to be confined to the galleys for life. I should have thought these published documents must have passed into the hands of the Duke and his friends. They are, however, ill-arranged as well as voluminous, and hence it is that I am reluctantly obliged to hesitate about saying at once what I may have to say.
"Faithfully yours,
"W. E. GLADSTONE."
"July 12, 1861.
"Dear Lord Normanby,—I am now in a condition to tell you what, from the documentary information in my hands, I can consistently and properly state in reference to the youth Granaj, and to the charge against the Duke of Modena
1256
of having brought homicide by youths under age within the reach of capital punishment by means of an ex post facto law. I fear it may not give you much satisfaction. First, I think that I put a construction on the document I cited beyond what it properly bears. It is certainly not an order for execution; and I am ready to express my deep concern for having used words that might fairly be held so to describe it; and, thought I think that the order apparently indicates an intention of operating ex post facto, it may, as a single document, be otherwise construed. Secondly, I do not assert that Granaj was brought within the operation of the law; and such evidence as I possess appears to show that he was not put to death, but sent to the galleys for life. Thirdly, I am sorry to say that the general charge remains in full force and with circumstances of aggravation. In September, 1857, the Duke by decree appointed a military commission—apparently a commission of Austrian officers— to try persons charged with homicide; and authorized this commission to try all pending causes of that class in which the act was charged to have been committed anterior to the appointment of the commission, and since the (previous) 'state of siege' had been abolished. Persons capitally condemned were to be executed within twenty-four hours. Fourthly, on the 7th of October, in the same year, the Duke authorized the military commandant to apply this capital punishment to youths under eighteen years of age, and, combining this with the last paragraph giving the law ex post facto operation, you will see that the ex post facto operation is made applicable to youths under eighteen. The Duke of Modena at the same time alters the law of the country by admitting the evidence of accomplices and that of soldiers—that is to say, persons under the military control of the judges themselves. I quote from the same repository of published documents, and not from any comment upon them. Might I venture to recommend your personal inspection of the collection? I am quite ready to make, or not, as you think fit, an explanation to the effect above described, and
"I remain, faithfully yours,
"W. E. GLADSTONE."
On the 13th he wrote to Mr. Gladstone—
"Hamilton Lodge, July 13th, 1861.
"Dear Mr. Gladstone,—If you adhere to the intention you announced to me of taking the earliest opportunity of expressing your regret as to the errors into which you had fallen yourself and led others upon the only grave charge you had made against the Duke of Modena, referring exclusively to the case of Granaj in 1855, I can have no objection to the manner in which you propose to do so. But if you mean to avail yourself of that opportunity to bring forward new charges against the Duke, I must protest against the unfairness of that proceeding, although I happen to have in my hands authentic materials for contradicting the fresh allegation relating to quite a different period, put forward in the letter I have just received. Should you persevere in this strange method of making amends for admitted mistakes I shall give these additional contradictions when I dispose, I trust satisfactorily, of the other five minor charges, which throughout Europe are only known as coupled with your name. On

1257
that occasion, I, of course, reserve the option of using our correspondence as the best mode of doing full justice to both parties.
"Yours faithfully,
"NORMANBY."
He did not think that the right hon. Gentleman, sitting on the bench with other Ministers, and speaking in the name of the British Crown, ought to have made charges with the levity with which these charges had been made. The last letter which he received from Mr. Gladstone was as follows:—
"11, Carlton Terrace, July 15, 1861.
"My dear Lord Normanby—If you think fit to supply me with the evidence on which you are prepared to contradict the documents referred to under Nos. 3 and 4 of my last letter, I shall be most happy to consider it. If you do not I shall then state, with your approval, that you have apprised me you mean to contradict, but have not been disposed to put your proofs in my hands. I have no intention of bringing any new charge against the Duke of Modena. I think it would be ungenerous to do so in connection with an explanation such as is intended. But my charge was that he had by an ex post facto edict brought youths under age, charged with homicide, within reach of capital punishment. This charge I unfortunately find to be true, and I, therefore, cannot recede from it. You treat what I said about Granaj as the principal charge, and the others as minor. Of course it is open to you to classify them as you please; but the classification is yours, not mine. I did not treat it as the principal charge; I look upon all these charges alike, as mainly important from their tendency to illustrate that character of real lawlessness which, unhappily, distinguished the Government of Modena. What I understand you to ask is this, that when I state my charge not to be proved by page 6, I should refrain from stating that it is more than proved by pages 11 and 14. To this I think your Lordship will see I could not accede.
"I remain, faithfully yours,
W. E. GLADSTONE."
The right hon. Gentleman alluded in this letter to a publication which no one that he knew of had seen but himself, and which certainly was not such a document as he had any right to quote. To that letter he replied as follows:—
"Hamilton Lodge, July 16, 1861.
"Dear Mr. Gladstone,—I never saw the publication to which you refer, nor do I know anything of its contents, except from the selections you yourself made; but I know the infamous means by which it was concocted, and the disrepute in which the characters of the compilers are held. It was never communicated to the Duke of Modena, and neither he nor his friends ever saw it, nor had their attention been called to the charges, except by the translation of your speech; but for that they would not have condescended to notice anything coming from so impure a source. Therefore, I positively decline to discuss by letter any new charges which you have taken from that book. If you choose to enter into a new campaign, un-
1258
der the auspices of these persons, I have no doubt I shall on Monday next have so many more opportunities of proving how you have been deceived. I think it fair, however, to caution you against proceeding with the levity shown in your letter of the 12th, where you talk of the commission, apparently composed of Austrian officers.' Can it be possible you have spoken and written all this about Modena in ignorance of the notorious fact that every Austrian officer had been removed from the duchy with the army of occupation eighteen months before the period to which you refer? If you choose to introduce these topics, and to say that I was not disposed to put my proofs into your hands, you will, of course, give my reasons for such refusal; but I trust you will see that it better on every account to confine your explanation to those points on which you feel yourself indisputably wrong, by which means you will do the best in your power to remedy the personal injury you have inflicted.
"Yours faithfully,
"NORMANBY."
The right hon. Gentleman's explanation was so unsatisfactory that in some of the papers it was summarized thus—
"Mr. Gladstone vindicated his former statements with regard to the Duke of Modena."
If that were the case, Mr. Gladstone certainly did not express himself with the extreme facility and ability which he displayed when he knew exactly what was the impression which he wished to convey. He had a perfect answer to all the charges which had been made. So far from substituting the military for the civil code, the Duke had directed that, where there was any distinction between them in regard to any particular crime, the milder punishment of the two should be applied. With respect to the Commission, only five persons had been executed under it, and not one of them within twenty-four hours after sentence, as Mr. Gladstone had asserted. No intention of the sort had ever been entertained. No doubt there were many of the victims of General Cialdini and General Pinelli who would have been very glad of this twenty-four hours' respite. He had another witness on this point to which he begged their Lordships' particular attention. Since Mr. Gladstone made his statement he had received a letter from the Duke of Modena, which showed the frankness and honesty of his conduct, and which also disposed of Mr. Gladstone's insinuation that the Duke knew nothing of what his Government were doing. He would read to their Lordships three extracts from that letter. The first related to the manner in which the Duke left his territory, and was as follows:—
"If I have not the means to supply you with the further documents that you desire, I beg you

1259
to take into your consideration that in quitting my States, I did not touch the archives or even the confidential papers of my own private secretary. I did not wish to displace anything which might be necessary to guarantee the personal interests of any one. This would suffice to prove that I did not feel myself guilty of any injustice whatever, and that I did not fear the judgment of honest men. You will recollect that I had ample time to carry off everything, but I then believed a powerful foreign invader, united with an Italian King, would be less disloyal than they proved to be after their victories. The latter stooping, by means of his political agents, to personal libels, procured at the price of the violation of the secrecy of strictly private letters."
With regard to Granaj's case, the Duke wrote—
"I now know the alleged test. I say alleged because it is impossible to remember all one may have written or proposed in so many years of government. The alleged text of the principal ground of the accusation of Mr. Gladstone is this; the order which I gave to a Commission which was to compile the project of a new code, referring to a condemnation against a certain Granaj, guilty of premeditated homicide. The text quoted will suffice to refute the calumnious assertion of Mr. Gladstone that I had caused a man to be put to death whom the law did not condemn to that penalty. I took occasion from such a premeditated case of homicide to prescribe that in the new code relating to atrocious crimes, when evident malicious intent was shown, the extreme penalty might be applied, even when the accused should be under twenty-one years of age. Such an exception had already been made for criminals guilty of high treason. In the code established in 1856 the age of eighteen was established as the minimum for the application of the penalty of death in cases comprising these crimes. My order was to apply to future cases, and not to Granaj; for that would have been giving a retrospective force to a law injuriously affecting a criminal, and, therefore, an act highly reprehensible. Thus, therefore, falls to the ground the principal accusation that Mr. Gladstone brings against me."
The third extract related to Mr. Gladstone's accusation of the general arbitrary nature and lawlessness of the Duke's Government, and on this point the Duke wrote—
"If my Government had been as arbitrary as Mr. Gladstone likes to believe it, I know not why so many families emigrated with me. Why, up to this time, not one has returned home, although suffering much thereby in their material interests. Why my troops abandoned their country and their families for an indefinite period, resisting seductions of every kind, and menaces of revolutionary vengeance. Why, in short, troops cut off from their own country should continue to recruit their ranks far better even than when I held authority in my hands."
The publication on which Mr. Gladstone had relied was not a solitary instance. It was tried with similar success by the same person against the Duchess of Parma,
1260
and also by other Piedmontese agents against the Grand Duke of Florence. A couple of years ago everybody was full of the story that the Grand Duke had left orders to bombard Florence; but who now believed it? With regard to the present state of Italy, there was a perfect system of deception practised by every one acting on behalf of the Piedmontese Government. Their Lordships knew that it existed in the Ministers of the King, because they had suffered from one of the greatest diplomatic deceptions ever attempted, when, on the occasion of the first discussion last year respecting the annexation of Savoy and Nice, a telegram with these words of Count Cavour was produced by the noble Lord opposite, "I have no intention either to sell, barter, or exchange an inch of territory." Just to show how our unsuspecting agents were imposed upon in different parts, their Lordships would find that Mr. Bonham wrote home from Naples to the effect that Count San Martino had told him that there had been great exaggeration about the reactionary bands; that there were only five of them consisting of about 100 men in each. Such a story made one ashamed of diplomacy. So far from there being only 500 men in arms in all the dominions of Naples, five times as many thousands were known to be scattered over the kingdom. Now, he thought their Lordships had a right to some accurate information on this subject, and if Sir James Hudson did not choose to write his own account of these transactions he would suggest to Her Majesty's Government an easy method of being better informed of what went on in Naples. They might refer to the official documents respecting the proceedings of the Turin Chamber of Deputies, and there they would find how far the opinions of the Neapolitan deputies corresponded with that of Count San Martino. Such was the condition to which the country was reduced by the Sardinian Government that if the people were now called upon for their votes the result would be very different. If the official accounts to which he alluded were forthcoming, Mr. Gladstone would find a charge made against the Sardinian Government of treating most harshly an individual whom they imprisoned, and distinct charges were also made against them of falsifying telegrams. He would also ask the noble Lord how he would explain the return of General Pinelli? Early in the Session, when he read General Pinelli's proclamation, the noble Lord said that the best

1261
proof that it had been disapproved by the Sardinian Government was that Pinelli had been recalled; but how was that consistent with the fact of his re-employment? It was proper that the Government should be in possession of accurate information before they arrived at such hasty judgments as those of Mr. Gladstone. The whole of Southern Italy was in a state of hopeless anarchy, and throughout the whole of the rest of Italy there was a growing distaste for the Piedmontese domination, and the people at any moment were ready to break out into open revolt. The noble Marquess concluded by moving—
"That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty for Copies or Extracts of any Despatches relating to the Affairs of the Duchy of Modena from Her Majesty's Minister accredited to the Courts of Central Italy, during the years 1855, 1856, 1857, and 1858."
LORD WODEHOUSEthought he was entitled to ask the House whether it was a convenient plan that a Member of one House should be attacked as to a particular statement which he had made, and that allegations should be made against him affecting his personal accuracy, in the House of which he was not a Member, and in which he was not himself present to answer this attack? No doubt it would be very disagreeable to the accusers of Mr. Gladstone to meet him face to face. No doubt they found it a great deal more convenient to bring these charges where he himself was not present to answer them; but it would be only fair and just towards him, and would only accord with the usual practice of Parliament, that the accusations should be brought forward in the House where the statements complained of were made. Now, the whole of the speech made by the noble Marquess referred to statements made some months ago by a Member of the other House, and in point of strict order it was not open to a Member of one House to comment upon a speech made in the other. He disclaimed the slightest wish, however, to avoid entering into the case. What he wanted to hear from the noble Marquess was whether the documents which had been printed and published at Modena were forgeries or not. [The Marquess of NORMANBY: How am I to know?] Well, then, how was he (Lord Wodehouse) to know? [The Marquess of NORMANBY: I have not seen them.] When grave accusations of this kind were brought forward, it was surely desirable to study the
1262
documents out of which they arose. These documents, for the authenticity of which he was not called upon to vouch, were published at Modena by the authority of the Provisional Government, and were declared to have been found in the archives of the Modenese Government. Some of them were published in 1859 and others in 1860. Of course, if it could be shown that they were not authentic, all that was based upon them at once fell to the ground; but they were uncontradicted in any form by those who were supposed to have written them. Indeed, the noble Marquess himself had given some confirmation to them when he said that those by whom they had been published had stolen private letters. The noble Marquess did not allege that they were forgeries, and seemed to admit that they were private letters containing orders given by the Duke of Modena to his Ministers. Then the noble Marquess said they were not edicts. Now, that was the very thing he complained of. The main charge against the Duke was that he was constantly interfering with the ordinary administration of the law, and interfered not by edicts, but by rescripts addressed to his principal Ministers, which rescripts, affecting the personal liberty of his subjects, were by him considered to be private letters. If it were necessary to justify the declaration of the right hon. Friend that there was a state of utter lawlessness in the dominions of the Duke of Modena, he thought such a justification could be found in the remark of the noble Marquess, without going any further. But he wished to point out something which the noble Marquess had omitted to remark—namely, that the particular statement respecting the alleged execution of Granaj, about which Mr. Gladstone admitted that there might be some inaccuracy, was only one of many statements made by his right hon. Friend. The noble Marquess said nothing whatever about the other statements. Mr. Gladstone in his speech alluded to a variety of orders issued by the Duke of Modena. As to the case of Granaj Mr. Gladstone admitted he was in error in saying he was law which was made applicable to him as ex post facto law; and a further examination of the papers confirmed the view he had taken. It appeared that a state of siege was established at Carrara; that came to an end on the 13th of December, 1854. A military commission was appointed in 1857, that was empowered to

1263
judge a variety of crimes. One of them was "insults by words against the military authorities." Another order made the law of capital punishment applicable to persons under eighteen years of age. Another order gave the Military Commission power to judge all crimes committed since the state of siege was put an end to. Their Lorships would observe the dates. The state of siege was terminated on the 13th of December, 1854. The Military Commission was appointed in 1857, and it was empowered to take cognizance of all crimes committed since the close of the state of siege. Now, the order referring to the man Granaj was dated the 27th of August, 1855. It was perfectly possible for crimes committed between 1854 and 1855 to have been judged by an ex post facto law; it was impossible to put any other construction on the documents; that being the case, he thought Mr. Gladstone was not without justification in making the statement. It appeared also from these documents that the Duke of Modena wrote a letter to one of his Ministers in which he complained of the tribunal of appeal, which he said made itself the advocate instead of the Judge of criminals. Another point the noble Marquess had alluded to in a rather cursory manner. He spoke of a certain house of detention as if it were a reformatory where prisoners were taught useful trades. But one of these orders issued by the Duke of Modena did not seem to bear out the description. By this order the Duke, alluding to the prisoners who were under condemnation for criminal offences—about 254 in number—said that with regard to one third of these, in consequence of the mildness of their sentences, they were to be confined in the reformatory after the expiration of their sentence, until they had given proof of amendment. That the sentences of the Judges would be thus revised by the Executive, and persons kept in prison for indefinite period, was, he thought, rather arbitrary. The noble Marquess said that only five persons were executed in Modena during a considerable period. [The Marquess of NORMANBY: The Duke's whole reign.] During the whole reign of the Duke. But Mr. Gladstone's charge was not of cruelty, but of arbitrary Government; that the Duke revised the sentences of the Judges as he thought proper, and that this was an intolerable system. Another case was curious. Three prosecutions were dismissed by the Judge "for want of proof." The Duke calls this "a
1264
pretended want of proof, when there was the unanimous deposition of the forza publica." In another order the Duke complains of want of vigour in repressing a disturbance in a theatre in Carrara; he says, "The soldiers are to make use of their arms," and that "a wounded soldier ought to cost dear to a population that is guilty of such a misdeed." It appeared that the Duke interfered in every way with the administration of the law. But, not satisfied with defending the Duke of Modena, the noble Marquess had taken Her Majesty's Government to task in reference to the reappointment of General Pinelli, who had been sent back to Naples. They were not responsible for that or any other appointment of the Italian Government. The noble Marquess complained of all the official reports received from Italy that were not in accordance with his own views, and thought no confidence ought to be placed in them. For instance, he was surprised that Mr. Consul Bonham should exhibit such a want of information as to the brigandage in the Neapolitan territory. But a few weeks afterwards, when the number of the bands had increased, Mr. Bonham reported, on the 8th of June, that brigandage" prevails to a great and alarming extent." He could not see why the noble Marquess should complain because Mr. Bonham did not, in his first Report, make the number so large as in the second. As to the papers asked for by the noble Marquess, he did not suppose that they could be of any use to him personally, and, without further inquiry, he was not prepared to say that they could be produced without inconvenience to the public service.
THE EARL OF DERBY: My Lords, I think it is a matter of regret that at this late period of the Session my noble Friend (the Marquess of Normanby) should have thought it necessary to call attention to the case of the Duke of Modena; but I by no means desire to cast the slightest imputation or blame on my noble Friend for having come forward in the manner he has to satisfy what appeared to him to be the claims of public justice, as well as of private friendship for a Prince in misfortune, inasmuch as the Duke of Modena has been in an extraordinary and unusual manner attacked by one of the Cabinet Ministers of this country. It may be but of little importance to us what course the Duke of Modena pursued when he filled the position of a reigning Prince; but it is of the

1265
greatest importance to the character of this country and to the character of Parliament that a member of the Government should not avail himself of the facilities afforded to him by his official position and his seat in Parliament to throw out against a deposed Sovereign, on no sufficient evidence, a charge which it was impossible that the person accused should have an opportunity of meeting. And when the noble Lord opposite (Lord Wodehouse) says he thinks it a most extraordinary thing that my noble Friend should not have brought forward his defence of the Duke of Modena in the place where the accusation was made, he must know that my noble Friend has no opportunity of making that defence in the House of Commons, and no opportunity of bringing the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer face to face with him in this House. What the noble Marquess had done has not been to bring him face to face; but in the correspondence he has driven the right hon. Gentleman from point to point, and obtained from him a reluctant, though in some respects certainly not a gracious, retractation of errors into which he has fallen. I think a generous mind would naturally shrink with repugnance from taking advantage of the opportunity—even if forced upon him—of expressing in the House of Commons exultation and triumph over the fallen and putting forth slanders against the unfortunate; yet, without the slightest necessity, or any provocation to such a course, the right hon. Gentleman has in his place in the House of Commons brought against an absent Sovereign charges of the most heinous character—accusations which he had subsequently admitted that on investigation he is not able to substantiate. I have seen the letter from the Duke of Modena to my noble Friend to which the noble Marquess had made reference. I think my noble Friend exercised a wise discretion in not reading that letter, which is very long; but if it could be laid before your Lordships you would see that there is not a sentence in it that does not denote that it has emanated from a man conscious of the rectitude of his own conduct, and feeling that he has been unjustly accused by the Minister of a friendly Sovereign who, availing himself of the opportunity which his position as a Minister and a Member of Parliament afforded him, has given utterance to those charges, and stated them in such a manner as would convey the impression that they were founded on official do-
1266
cuments to which he, as a Member of the Government, had access. And now, as to official documents, the noble Lord opposite held in his hand a book which appeared to be very voluminous, and which, perhaps, the Duke of Modena, my noble Friend, or none of us in this House had ever seen; but having heard one or two quotations from that book, we are called on to state whether in our opinion those documents are forged or not. Not having seen them, it is impossible for us to say. This my noble Friend said, that if some were authentic they had been obtained by the basest means and in the most unworthy manner. He further stated that papers had been left by the Duke of Modena in the confidence that they contained nothing against his character or which a generous enemy could publish to his disadvantage. They were left in the archives of Modena. Whether that we have heard of them have been correctly published we do not know, but if they have been they do not bear out the charges which Mr. Gladstone thought fit to bring against the Duke of Modena in the House of Commons. The noble Lord opposite enters on the discussion as to whether the Government of the Duke of Modena was an arbitrary one; and he appeals to the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack to know what he should think if the Executive of this country were to call on the Judges to revise their sentences, with a view to making them more severe. It is not necessary to tell us that the Duke of Modena's was not a constitutional Government; it is not necessary to tell us that he had an arbitrary power. It may be very objectionable that any Sovereign should have it in his discretion to exercise such a power; but that is not the question—the question is whether the Duke of Modena is open to the specific charge of which Mr. Gladstone said he was guilty. He did not volunteer in the House of Commons to show the arbitrary, cruel, and disgraceful manner in which, according to him, the Duke of Modena had exercised the power placed in his hands; in proof of which he stated that by an ex post facto edict he ordered the execution of a young man who did not come within those laws of the country which provided capital punishment. The charge of Mr. Gladstone was that an edict for the execution of Granaj was issued, and it was left to be inferred that the young man was executed. That is now retracted, I admit, but in what manner? Mr. Glad-

1267
stone says, "I think my words conveyed something more than I was justified in saying; but there was an ex post facto edict which rendered the young man liable to be executed." My Lords, that is a very different statement from the first; but even that has been clearly disproved by the evidence read by my noble Friend. No young man under the age of twenty-one has ever been executed in Modena during the Duke's reign. That is an indisputable fact which defies all contradiction or question. It is true that after atrocious crimes had been committed a letter was sent from the Duke of Modena to his Minister, directing an alteration to be made in regard to the laws. In that document the Duke does point out the inadequate sentence that had been passed on Granaj under the existing law, and directs that the law shall be modified so as to include within the offences liable to capital punishment the case of deliberate murder, even though the criminal is under twenty-one years of age. Is the alteration therein suggested a very unjust one? I should like to know whether in this country a man under the age of twenty-one years is not liable to execution for deliberate murder? The law of this country recognizes no such distinction as that which would exempt a person from capital punishment because he is under age. The Duke of Modena thinks there ought not to be such an exemption in his country, and he sends a direction to his Minister, who is drawing up a new code of law, and says, "Make under the new law premeditated murder, even when committed by persons under the age of twenty-one, punishable by capital punishment." Why, that is the law here, and that is the ground upon which Mr. Gladstone's charge rests, of an ex post facto edict having been issued by which Granaj was made subject to the penalty of death. Even under this direction—for it was not an edict, but a direction to a Minister to prepare an edict making an alteration in the law—there was no such intention as that alleged in the charge. No one pretends to say that the edict was ever carried into effect. In point of fact, it never was an edict at all; but in the letter quoted by my noble Friend, the Duke of Modena, distinctly and emphatically declares that even this direction was not intended to apply to the case of Granaj or to any other that had occurred, and, moreover, he declares, in the language of an honest man, that if he had intended to give a retrospective operation to the
1268
proposed law such an intention would have been most reprehensible. As an indication of the animus which dictated this charge, I may observe that Mr. Gladstone stated that the Duke of Modena had directed this edict to be acted on by Commission composed of Austrian officers, and that this Commission was directed not to refuse the evidence of soldiers. The not refusing the evidence of soldiers where the population was in insurrection, and the place was in a state of siege, was made one of the gravamina of the charges against the administration of the law under the Duke of Modena. But my noble Friend has shown conclusively that whereas the Duke of Modena was charged with causing Granaj to be executed, the fact was that he never was executed. He was charged with having passed an ex post facto enactment authorizing him to be executed—it was shown that no such ex post facto legislation was passed; he was charged with having caused him to be tried by a Commission of Austrian officers—it was proved that for eighteen months there had not been an Austrain officer in his dominions; he was charged with having enforced an ex post facto law, by which persons under twenty-one years of age were executed—it was proved that there were only five persons executed under the Duke's whole reign, each of whom had committed of-fences punishable with death under the civil law of the country, and that not a single person under twenty-one years of age was punished with death then or at any other time. These are the charges that were made against an absent and unfortunate Sovereign; and when these questions come to be discussed in the House of Lords, their Lordships, feeling the injury which had been done to the character of the country by one of the Ministers of the Crown availing himself of his position to put forth groundless and unfounded charges, and then refusing to offer a frank and fair refutation and retractation of charges, such as I should have thought an honourable man would have been only too eager to make—then, forsooth, we are met with the plea that he is not here to defend himself, and that we are bringing an accusation against him in his absence. Why, the accusation against the Duke of Modena was not only made in his absence, but was circulated all over Europe in the columns of The Times, and went forth as having been made in the freest assembly in the world by a Minister of the Crown,

1269
with all the authority of the Government to back it up; and that allegation must have been received as true unless some person, prompted by the honourable motives which have actuated the noble Marquess, and possessing his means of information, had come forward to contradict the charge, and scatter to the winds the accusations made by Her Majesty's Chancellor of the Exchequer. My noble Friend says, if you wish for information relative to the years in which those transactions are said to have occurred, you have the means of furnishing the House with them; and those very documents, though they are not brought forward, have been quoted from this evening. [Earl GRANVILLE made a gesture of dissent.] Why, I see them now in the noble Lord's hand. We have never seen them, and we cannot act upon them. I always thought the rule was that the Minister, if he did not feel himself at liberty to lay papers upon the table of the House, should abstain from quoting from them. My noble Friend says if you wish to have authentic information as to the proceedings in Modena, as to the conduct of the Government, and the relations between the Government and the people, the estimation in which the Duke was held, and as to the general condition of the country, you will lay on the table those Reports which you received from your agents during the last three years; and we shall then be able to see whether there is in them anything which justifies the charges of misconduct and criminality brought by the Chancellor of the Exchequer against the Duke of Modena. I think it is a matter of perfect indifference to my noble Friend whether these documents are produced or not. Of this I am quite sure, that if they could substantiate the charges made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer there would be no repugnance or difficulty on the part of his colleagues about laying them on the table. If they are refused, I presume the fair inference will be, to say the least, that they do not support those charges. I certainly have a very strong suspicion on my own mind that they contain abundant matter for repudiating them. I should by no means recommend him to press for their production against the wish of Her Majesty's Government, I think he may feel perfectly satisfied with what has taken place. And I trust what has passed in this House will afford some reparation to that unfortunate and injured Sovereign—into the merits of whose Government I
1270
will not enter — for the grievous wrong and injustice which have been perpetrated upon him in the other House of Parliament.
EARL GRANVILLE: My Lords, I entirely agree with all that has fallen from the noble Earl as to its being disagreeable, even if necessary, to make an attack, not merely upon a deposed Sovereign, but upon any individual, whatever his position, who may be in adversity, and who is not present to defend himself. But that principle has been pushed to an extreme which seems to me utterly indefensible. What is there in the character of a deposed Sovereign that renders it impossible, in the course of a discussion in Parliament bearing upon political questions, to bring any act of the Duke of Modena, fairly stated, before the public? Or in what way are the charges brought against that Sovereign more reprehensible than the political and personal attacks which we have heard in this House almost daily from the noble Marquess upon the King of Sardinia, his Ministers and Generals, who, equally with the Duke of Modena, are absent from this House, and have no available means that I know to repel the attacks made upon them? I confess I cannot see the difference between them. The charges brought against Mr. Gladstone with so much energy by the noble Earl who has just sat down appear to me to amount to this—that he had no business whatever to bring any accusations whatever against the Duke of Modena, and that those which he did make were unfounded. I can conceive nothing more reasonable than, in a discussion on the great Italian question, very much turning on the right of resistance on the part of the people against the constituted Government, inquiry should be made as to the character of that Government, the treatment which the people have received, and the reason which they have to complain. I think if it could be shown that the Government of the Sovereign of that country had a revolutionary tendency—and there is no course more pregnant with revolution than a rule systematically opposed to the established law of the country—it would have a very material bearing upon the discussion. And such was the line of argument adopted by my right hon. Friend. But one single point of his argument and his charges has been impugned. After a correspondence with the noble Marquess, and after a careful examination of the facts, my right hon.

1271
Friend came to the conclusion that he had been mistaken in one respect, and had drawn a wrong inference. He, thereupon, went down to the House of Commons and made a statement exactly to that effect. The noble Earl has referred to that speech, of which he derives his impression from a short abstract in a weekly paper. I sometimes read a weekly paper, in which I see short abstracts of the noble Earl's remarks, and I can assure him he would by no means acknowledge that they contained a correct representation of what had fallen from him. The noble Earl, who must have been in desperate want of an argument, says it is not the rule to read from private letters or from despatches which have not been laid on the Table of the House. It is not the habit of any Government that I know of to lay on the Table documents belonging to other Governments. This book was published by the order of the de facto Government established at Modena at the time—a revolutionary Government I admit, but which was afterwards regularly constituted. The book consists of documents found in the archives; it has been published now for more than a year, and its contents have never been impugned. The noble Earl says the Duke of Modena never read it;—that fact appears to me perfectly incomprehensible. I have got a copy of the book myself, several friends of mine possess copies of it, and it was circulated all over Italy. If the Duke of Modena doubted its authenticity, and had been unable himself to procure a copy, he could easily have procured an agent who would have got access to it and investigated its contents; and if these could have been shown to be fictitious they would have inflicted indelible disgrace upon the men who forged such documents. But nobody has ventured to say that they are not literal copies of the instructions given by the Duke of Modena or his Minister to his private Secretary. The noble Earl says he presumes we shall refuse the papers asked for by the noble Marquess, and he, thereupon, grounded a charge against Her Majesty's Government. I can only express may own belief that it would be useless to produce them. It may be satisfactory to the noble Marquess to see what he wrote; but I cannot say I should think it perfectly conclusive if no such charges appeared in them. But, if the House thinks that it is worth the expense to print them, I conceive there will be no disadvantage to the public service in al-
1272
lowing them to be laid on the Table. I certainly object to these personal discussions. And I think, with my noble Friend the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs, it would be infinitely more satisfactory if they occurred in the House in which the debate originally took place. The noble Marquess, in the course of his speech, did little more than read letters; and, as there are several persons in the other House who take the same strong interest in foreign politics as the noble Marquess, I do not see in what way the Duke of Modena's case could have suffered had he place the papers in the hands of some Member of the House of Commons to enable him to reply to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I am bound to say that anything more incorrect than the statement that all the charges of the Chancellor of the Exchequer have been scattered to the winds I never yet heard.
LORD BROUGHAMsaid, that when a person was reading a correspondence in which he had himself taken part, it was very common for him to read his own letters with much greater distinctness, with much more emphasis, and much more audibly, than his adversary's. That was what had occurred with the noble Marquess. When he sat, as he did at the commencement of his noble Friend's speech, in his usual place on the other side of the House, he heard every word, every syllable, and every letter of his noble Friend's letters; but whether it was that in the transition from his own to Mr. Gladstone's letter his noble Friend dropped his voice—not knowingly and wilfully—God forbid he should charge him with that! — or from other causes, he certainly did not hear the letters of the right hon. Gentleman. When he came to the side of the House from which he was then speaking he heard better; but still Mr. Gladstone's letters were not read with the same emphasis and in the same clear tone as were those of his noble Friend. The charge against Mr. Gladstone was this—he accused the Duke of Modena of issuing a retrospective edict which went to the punishment of offenders who were not then of legal age, and he assumed that that edict had had its operation, and had caused the execution of a person named Antonio Granaj. It was natural that Mr. Gladstone should think that if the Duke of Modena issued this edict he did it with the intention that it should be carried into effect, because it was known that the Duke was "nauseated" with certain sen-

1273
tences because he thought them too mild; and it was also natural that he should suppose that execution had actually taken place, because in Modena procedure was very summary, and execution followed very rapidly upon sentence. Again, as this edict was issued for the express purpose of punishing persons for offences committed previous to its being issued, it was a very probable presumption that this offender had been executed. More than that, however, Mr. Gladstone had information that the execution had in fact taken place, so that the probability was in his mind, connected with something like certainty. The charge against him was that when he discovered that he had been misinformed, and that, in point of fact, the execution had not taken place, he did not sufficiently retract, and explain, and express his regret for having made the statement. Now, in the House of Commons—in the very place where he had made the charge—Mr. Gladstone expressly stated that he had been misinformed, that his information was incorrect, and the inference which he had founded upon it erroneous. The noble Marquess asked why he did not express any regret? He (Lord Brougham) had not the good fortune—and he should always esteem it great good fortune to be present when so great a speaker, so eloquent and brilliant an orator as Mr. Gladstone was to be heard—to be in the House of Commons on the evening when the right hon. Gentleman made his statement, having crossed the threshold of that House only twice since the 19th of November, 1830, namely: once about a year ago to listen to Mr. Gladstone, and again the other night to hear his noble Friend at the head of the Government explain his intentions with respect to the Amendments introduced by their Lordships into the Bankruptcy Bill; but he understood from his noble Friends who heard the explanation, that Mr. Gladstone did express his regret that he had fallen into this error. One word with respect to the book of which so much had been said. Mr. Gladstone's statement proceeded upon documents which had been published officially by the provisional or temporary or de facto Government of Modena. They had been for twelve months exposed to sale and accessible to every one. But the Duke of Modena could not by any means obtain a sight of this book, nor, it appeared, could the noble Marquess. The only persons who laboured under the misfortune of not been able to procure them were the client
1274
and the advocate, the Duke of Modena and the noble Marquess. But, then, the noble Marquess said, "How can you tell that these documents are not forgeries?" and Mr. Gladstone might reply, "How can you tell that they are?" Nobody pretended to say that they were forgeries—for anything that appeared they were authentic; and, if they were, Mr. Gladstone's defence was complete. If the letters which were now sought for were in the Foreign Office, no doubt they would be forthcoming, and their Lordships would then see whether Mr. Gladstone was borne out in his statements by those documents. It had been urged in favour of the Duke of Modena—of whom he desired to speak with all the respect due to misfortune—that he had removed or destroyed none of his papers; and these papers would show that he was perfectly clear of the charge. It was a very unusual thing for persons, either upon Grand Ducal or other thrones, or upon no thrones at all, who were engaged in proceedings which would not bear the light, to put in writing what they were doing, to manufacture evidence against themselves, and leave it to be found by their enemies. Such a proceeding was, in the life of a criminal, whether throned or not, most unusual. What was the Duke of Modena's defence? He said, "Search my depositories and you will find no papers to show that I am guilty." He did not believe there was any prisoner now waiting for trial at the Old Bailey or elsewhere who, if he could not with truth plead "Not guilty," could not at least say truly that he had not knowingly left behind him any evidence against himself. The other evening, when the noble Marquess gave notice of his intention to bring forward this subject, he said he wished the Grand Duke a good deliverance, meaning not only from his accuser, Mr. Gladstone, but from his advocate, for they had here another illustration of the proverb—"Save me from my friends, and I will protect myself against my enemies." As the noble Marquess had extended his observations beyond the case in point to the general state of Italy, he (Lord Brougham) might be allowed to say that he still held, as he had always done, that there was no act more utterly without justification, and even with out extenuation than for a nation, whether France, Piedmont, or any other, to possess itself of the territory of another State under the pretence that its government was bad. That was the pretext under which one of

1275
the greatest crimes of ancient or modern times—the first partition of Poland in 1772—was committed. At that time Poland was subject to an elective monarchy, under which perpetual anarchy prevailed; but that was no excuse for the conduct of Prussia, Austria, and Russia. With regard to a solution of the Roman question he wished he could say as he had said of the proceedings of France and Sardinia elsewhere—
"Quod non fieri debet factum valeat."
However much he might disapprove the act itself before it was done, yet after it was accomplished he could not but hail with heartfelt joy the termination of the atrocious tyranny of the Bourbons. The Present Government of Rome was elective, like that of Poland, and was one of the worst in Europe; but still that would not justify the seizure of the Papal States by any foreign Power. He hoped the day would arrive when they would free themselves from the bad Government under which they were suffering, that that would be effected by themselves, and that they would be left to themselves without the intervention of other parties. He was altogether opposed to the new-fangled notions about nationalities—as if the origin of any nation or the form of any Government gave a foreign Power a right to interfere and appropriate the territory. But, while he could not approve that schemes of aggression to which that eminent statesman Count Cavour had lent himself, with the Co-operation of the Emperor of the French, he heartily rejoiced at the establishment of a great and constitutional Italian kingdom.
THE MARQUESS OF NORMANBYsaid, after the unanswerable speech of his noble Friend near him (Lord Derby), he certainly should not think of detaining their Lordships with any reply, nor could his noble and learned Friend who had just sat down expect that he should take any serious notice of his attempt to amuse the House. He could only remark that he (Lord Brougham) appeared there as the advocate of Mr. Gladstone, in a spirit worthy of his client as it was ungenerous and even unfair to the Duke of Modena. As he understood there was some difficulty about consenting to the immediate production of the additional papers to which he had referred in his former statement, he begged to give notice of a Motion for their production on Friday.
Motion aggreed to.

CASE OF QUARTERMASTER DODD.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  THE EARL OF LUCANrose, pursuant to notice—
  "To call the Attention of the House to the Correspondence between the Lord Lieutenant of County of Mayo an the Government of Ireland on the Subject of the Resignation of his Commission by Quartermaster Dodd of the south Mayo Rifles, and the Appointment of his Successor."
  The facts were simply these:—An officer commanding one of the regiments of militia, only lately appointed himself, and therefore, little conversant with the proper channel for communications on the subject of discipline, erroneously applied to the Inspector General of Militia with respect to the conduct of a Quartermaster. The Inspector of Militia erroneously entered into a correspondence with the commanding officer, and recommended that a certain course should be pursued, Ultimately the Lord Lieutenant accepted the resignation of Quartermaster Dodd, and appointed a successor, without consulting him (the Earl of Lucan) as Lord Lieutenant of the county. At this time he (the Earl of Lucan) was necessarily absent from the country; but as soon as he became aware of these proceedings he saw Sir Thomas Larcom, and remonstrated with him upon the irregularity of the course which had been adopted. Sir Thomas Larcom admitted the justice of his complaint, and expressed his sorrow that an unusual course should have been taken. He was perfectly satisfied, and should have thought no more of the matter, but for what subsequently occurred. In April he had received a letter from Sir Thomas Larcom, informing him of all which had been going on during two months previous, and which ended in the acceptance by the Government of the resignation of the Quartermaster. In May he wrote a reply protesting against his authority, as Lieutenant of the county, being superseded; and he was in hopes, after the expression of regret by Sir Thomas Larcom, to which he had referred, that the Government of Ireland would have at once admitted that what had been done had been done inadvertently. But great was his astonishment when he received a letter, dated the 11th of June, in which it was distinctly laid down that the position of Lieutenants of counties in Ireland differed entirely from the position of Lieutenants of counties in England; that communication with Lieutenants of counties in Ireland on subjects

  1277
  of discipline was totally unnecessary; and that the most convenient and regular course was for the commanding officer to communicate directly with the Government in Dublin. He believed there were several Lieutenants of English counties present, and he thought they would agree with him that nothing could be more illegal or improper than such direct communications, or that the resignation of an officer should be accepted without the intervention of the Lieutenant of the county. On the receipt of that letter he again remonstrated, and the Government thought is sufficiently important to refer the question to the law officers of the Crown. In their opinion they stated that the Irish Government had acted legally in reference to the case of Quartermaster Dodd, and that the Executive were justified under the circumstances in accepting his resignation. He (the Earl of Lucan) ventured to impugn that decision as being contrary to the intentions of the Legislature when passing the Acts which defined and regulated the duties of Lords-Lieutenant of counties. Looking at those Acts, he contended that there was no such distinction as was alleged between the powers and the duties of the Lords-Lieutenant of the two countries. The appointment of the quartermasters of militia regiments was vested exclusively in the Lords-Lieutenant of counties, and he believed that the Government had acted contrary to law, right, and usage, in appointing an officer as successor to Quartermaster Dodd. The Government said that the appointment of such officers was vested in the colonels of regiments. He concluded that it was vested in the hands of the Lords-Lieutenant of counties. It certainly never was the intention of the Legislature that any act should be done under the authority of law to degrade the office of Lord Lieutenant of counties, and he, therefore, hoped that Her Majesty's Government in that House would be able to give a satisfactory explanation on the subject.
  EARL GRANVILLEwas understood to say that he concurred with his noble Friend in his view of the high office of Lord Lieutenant of a county, and that it never was the intention of the Legislature to do anything that was calculated to degrade it. Her Majesty's Government, however, must be bound by the decision of their law officers in such cases as that to which the noble Earl had just called their attention. He thought there could be no doubt that there was a distinction between the office
  1278
  of a Lord Lieutenant in England and in Ireland. The whole subject would, however, be considered by the Government.

BOOK OF COMMON PRAYER.

  PETITIONS.
  LORD EBURYrose, pursuant to notice, to present a Petition of Members of the Church of England and Ireland, Praying for an Address to Her Majesty to appoint a Commission to inquire into the Subject of the Book of Common Prayer, with a view of making alterations therein. The noble Lord said that he had not given notice of his intention to present this petition, which was not numerously but most respectably signed, on account of any special importance he attached to it, but because he wished, with their Lordships' permission, to avail himself of the opportunity to state to the House and the country the reasons which induced him not to proceed with the Motion of which he had given notice at the termination of the last Session of Parliament, to lay this year upon the Table of the House a Bill to alter and amend the Act of Uniformity. In the first place, throughout his connection with this question he had been desirous that the initiative should come from the ecclesiastical element in the legislative body. He had, therefore, waited to see whether the Convocation of the Province of Canterbury would make any move in that direction. It had done so before; it might do so again. That body met this spring under new circumstances, inasmuch as they had asked and obtained a licence from the Crown to enter on the path of Reform. Undoubtedly it was not of a very radical description; still it was a step in the right direction, and he had hoped that they might have considered the propriety of requesting those of their body who had seats in Parliament to propose legislation to ameliorate some of those evils which had been the subject of such frequent complaint. Circumstances, however, occurred which prevented the further consideration of these matters. Their Lordships would recollect that the meeting of that body was twice postponed; once owing to a domestic affliction in the family of the most rev. Prelate, and once on account of his much regretted indisposition. Mean while the opportunity for acting in this House was passing away; and in addition, the storm raised by the discussion of the Essays and Reviews made it im-

  1279
  possible to obtain a fair hearing for anything else. It was, therefore, considered by those who had conduct of this question of liturgical revision to be an inopportune moment for stirring it in this House. Now, before he proceeded to state his intentions as to the future, he wished to draw their Lordships' attention to the altered position in which this question stood, since he made his statement in that House in May last year. Subsequent to his Motion in the House last May a similar one was made in the Lower House of Convocation with great ability by the Dean of Norwich and Mr. Oxenden, one of the elected representatives of the diocese of Canterbury; and, although not successful, yet if any of their Lordships would look into the Ecclesiastical Hansard they would see that their arguments remained unanswered, and that many who would not vote for the Motion at that time begged they might not be considered as pledged against it. Then, although in some episcopal charges a revision of the Liturgy had been somewhat apologetically deprecated, yet the right rev. Prelate who presided over the diocese of Glocester and Bristol had recommended it unhesitatingly, and in words to which he begged their Lordships' attention—
  "The further revision of the Liturgy has been strongly recommended by persons of learning and piety at various times since the last revision of 1802. Indeed, all true friends of the Church must, in the abstract, be in favour of revision. However wedded to those forms which they rightly cherish as one of the greatest blessings which they have inherited from their forefathers, they can hardly deny that there some alterations which would render the Prayer Book more perfect, and they must esteem it a service done to the Church of no little moment if any defect in her ritual were remedied, any acknowledged deficiency supplied, any change made by which, without the sacrifice of what is essential, the prejudices of Separatists might be removed and the peace and unity of the Church secured. He also adds that he sees no reason why that should not be done at once."
  But the most remarkable circumstance yet remained to be considered, and it emanated from the most rev. the Primate of Ireland, with the approbation of the Archbishop of Dublin. The House was aware that in consequence of the Provincial Synods of York and Canterbury having obtained a licence from the Crown to do so, they proceeded to alter the 29th Canon, which relates to parents becoming sponsors for their own children. When this was done, one of the Irish Bishops and his Clergy called
  1280
  upon the most rev. the Primate to convene a Synod for the purpose of following their example. This, however, the most rev. Primate declined to do, on account of an opinion which he entertained, after consulting with the ablest ecclesiastical lawyers of this country, that the 29th Canon never had any validity whatever, and, therefore, that, whether it were altered or no, the law remained the same; but he had added these remarks, which, coming from so highly respected a source, he was sure would be most interesting to the House—
  "If at any time a well-considered plan for a general revision of the canons and rubrics, or for shortening the accustomed services, or for amending the laws which regulate the discipline of the Church, should be previously framed by the heads of the Church and State, it would seem to me that a National Synod of the united Church is the appropriate body for considering the principles and arranging the details of such a measure before the introduction into Parliament of a Bill to give it legal effect; should an occasion of this kind present itself during the remaining period of my protracted Primacy my best efforts shall be used for the convening of a National Synod."
  Their Lordships would, therefore, see that there was abundant evidence to show not only that this question was not disposed of by the rejection of the Motion which he had the honor to make last year, but that it was as unsettled and as rife as ever, and as urgently requiring authoritative interposition. He should like to have added some further observations in reference to this part of the subject, but he had already trespassed at some length upon the Patience of the House and would refrain from so doing. He would merely add, that unless some move was made early next year by the ecclesiastical authorities (and this he must again repeat he earnestly desired, because he wished the initiative to proceed from them), it would be his duty to ask their Lordships' assent to a Bill for relaxing the terms of subscription, which had been so severely reprobated by some of the brightest ornaments of our Church, which had done and were doing an amount of mischief which could not be over-stated. Those of their Lordships who did him the honour to listen to him last year would remember that he described the alteration of the terms of subscription to be that without which all other alterations would be wholly incomplete. Their Lordships would, he thought, consider that the Motion would come with peculiar appropriateness next year. The fatal and revengeful Act which compelled these terms was passed in the year 1662; next year would be the 200th

  1281
  anniversary, and he trusted their Lordships would feel sincere pleasure in substituting for it something more in harmony with the conciliatory spirit and Christianity of our age. The noble Lord then presented the Petition; also one from Ashbourne to the same effect.
  THE BISHOP OF LONDONsaid, he was not authorized to state that Convocation would be likely to take up this subject. He was glad, however, to see that the question had become a little more clear than it was originally. It always appeared to him that this subject was greatly complicated by the mixing up of three questions which had very little to do with each other. One was whether the services of the Church could not be made more elastic and shorter; another was whether any alteration should be made in the doctrinal statements of the formularies of the Church; and the third, whether the terms of subscription should or should not be relaxed. He was glad to hear that the noble Lord intended to confine his attention to the third of these questions. He thought the noble Lord would be more likely to attain his object if he had adopted the course pursued on a late occasion by a noble Earl (Earl Stanhope) when an alteration was made in regard to certain services. On that occasion the noble Earl distinctly pointed out what the services were to which his Motion referred, and their Lordships knew the exact question with which they had to deal. The noble Lord, however, had always Pressed the necessity of a general revision of the Liturgy. Now, in former times, such a course as the noble Lord advocated had only been taken after a period of revolution. When the Church recovered form the convulsion into which it was thrown at the time of the Reformation there was, of course, a general revision, When the Royal Family and the Established Church were restored after the Commonwealth, and again when James II. was compelled to leave the Throne, there was a general revision of the Liturgy; but it seemed out of the question to propose a general revision of the whole Liturgy of the Church of England at a time like the present. If the noble Lord would set forth the changes which he wished to effect the country and the church would then be able distinctly to judge whether or not those changes were desirable, or whether they would not cause that general unsettlement of feeling throughout the country which was much to be
  1282
  deprecated, As to the terms of subscription, it was of great importance that the public should not suppose them to be more rigid than they really were. His impression was, that a man who conscientiously believed the Church of England to be the Church in which he wished to live and die, and who was not more attached to any other form of Christianity than that which the Church of England presented, might fairly and safely make the subscriptions which were required of him by the present law. These subscriptions were not so strict as the noble Lord seemed to imagine. They stated that the person who subscribed accepted the Articles of the Church of England; that, if he took orders. he would act according to the formularies of the Church; and that he upheld the Royal supremacy. The subscriptions were required of all clergymen and some laymen; they were required of every one becoming a governing member of the University of Oxford. They had been made by the noble Lord himself as a member of the University of Oxford, and he did not believe they would be found to go beyond what he had just stated. If, however, it should be found that they pressed in any way upon the consciences of scrupulous persons, and if any safe relaxation could be proposed, he was quite sure such a proposal would receive great attention from the right rev. Bench and from Convocation. What he had always deprecated was the general unsettlement in the Church of England which would certainly result from throwing the Prayerbook into the hands of a Commission with general authority to alter a course. As to the services of the Church, he had several times stated that they might, if it were desirable, be shortened. The Litany, for example, might, under the sanction of the diocesan, be used as a separate service; and there were other modes by which the services, if too long, might be abridged. But in the feeling of the laity, and if a clergyman ventured upon such a change it was extremely likely that he would find his position in the parish not particularly pleasant.
  THE MARQUESS OF WESTMEATHthought the extreme length of the services was objectionable. In the Morning service the Lord's Prayer was repeated five times. He had been told that the right rev. Prelate himself, on one occasion, in reading the service at a consecration, said, "You have had the Lord's prayer four times, I

  1283
  will not give it you again." [The Bishop of LONDON, by gesture, expressed his denial.] The Litany, it was suggested, might be omitted, and put in the Evening Service; but if there was any part of the service a "miserable sinner" might wish to retain, it was the Litany. Many of the clergy endeavoured to strain the existing law, but any effective movement must come from the Bishops.
  VISCOUNT DUNGANNONcould not understand the complaints relative to the repetition of the Lord's Prayer, and he regretted the manner in which it had been alluded to by the noble Marquess. Nothing of human origin could be entirely free from error; but if any composition was or could be perfect, it was the Liturgy of the Church of England. The laity generally disliked any innovation that would affect it, and he deprecated the repeated discussions on the subject of changes that could have no result but to unsettle and disturb men's minds. He did not cast any reflection on the course pursued by the noble Lord, but he regarded with alarm and anxiety any suggestion for altering the incomparable Liturgy of the new Reformed Catholic and Apostolic Church.
  Petition read, and ordered to lie on the Table,

TRAMWAYS (IRELAND) ACT AMEND MENT BILL

  REPORT OF AMENDMENTS.
  Order of the Day for receiving the Report of the Amendments.
  Moved, That the said, Report be now received; objected to; after short debate, Resolved in the Affirmative.
  Amendments reported accordingly.
  LORD REDESDALEmoved to omit
  Clause 7.
  On Question, Whether the said clause be omitted?
  Their Lordships divided—Contents 10;
  Not Contents 10.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORdecided that by the rule semper presumitur pronegarte the Motion was negatived.
  The clause was accordingly retained, and the Bill was then agreed to, with some verbal Amendments.
  Amendment negaticed.
  Bill to be read 3a on Monday next
  House adjourned at half-past Nine o'clock, 'till to-morrow, Twelve o' clock.