Lords Sitting of 2 May 1861

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILL.—3a Queen's Prison, &c.
ROMAN CATHOLIC PAUPERS.

  PETITION.
  THE EARL OF DERBY presented petitions of Roman Catholics, Edinburgh; and of John Campbell, Advocate of Edinburgh; against Inequality of Treatment of Pro-
  1362
  testants and Roman Catholics, and for Provision of Education of Roman Catholic Children. The noble Earl said he wished to draw their Lordship's attention to these petitions, one of which was signed by 787 Roman Catholics, ratepayers of the city of Edinburgh, the other by a Roman Catholic gentleman who had for two years been a member of the Parochial Board in that city. Their complaint was, in general terms, that under the present administration of the Poor Law in Scotland adequate provision was not afforded for the instruction of Roman Catholic children in the tenets of their religion, and they named, in particular, that the Roman Catholic pauper children were boarded out in the houses of Protestants, where, of course, any instruction of these children in their own religious creed was impossible; and they prayed their Lordships to cause an inquiry to be made into the matter, and to make such alterations in the provisions of the law as that Roman Catholic adults might be appointed to have the care of pauper children of Roman Catholic parents, and that such children might receive an education in conformity with the Roman Catholic form of worship. For the accuracy of the statements which the petitioners put forward, he, of course, did not hold himself responsible; but he at the same time thought it was incumbent upon the Government to take care that the people of this country, who so much reprobated the conduct of Roman Catholics in such cases, for instance, as that of the boy Mortara, should not be rendered liable to the charge of unduly interfering with the exercise of the religious principles of their Roman Catholic fellow-subjects. Entertaining these sentiments, he had deemed it to be his duty to place copies of the petitions which he had presented in the hands of the noble Duke opposite (the Duke of Argyll) in order that be might institute inquiries into the truth of the allegations which they contained. He wished to ascertain from the noble Duke whether he had received any information on the subject?
  The MARQUESS of NORMANBY and the MARQUESS of BRISTOL presented similar petitions from Birmingham, Manchester, Bury St. Edmund's, and St. Mario's, Middleton Lodge.
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLLsaid, that the noble Earl having directed his attention to the allegations of these petitions some days ago, he had caused inquiries to be made, and he could not do better than to

  1363
  read to their Lordships some extracts from the Poor Law regulations which had been sent to him by Sir John M'Neill, who was at the head of the Board of Supervision in Scotland. From the first of these rules it appeared that the adult inmates of poor houses in that country were required, unless they were incapacitated by illness, to attend morning and evening prayer daily, and Divine service on the Sabbath. It was provided, however, that those inmates who objected to attend on the ground of their religious tenets should be exempted from the rule. By another rule it was provided that any inmate should be allowed to receive the visits of a minister of his own faith, for the purpose of religious instruction, and for the education of his children. Orders were also directed to be given by the governor of the poor house to permit opportunities to Roman Catholic clergymen of making visits to the house, and to regulate the hours of instruction for adults and their children. These rules, it would be admitted, were very excellent, provided they were attended to. Another rule permitted paupers under certain regulations to visit places of worship in the town. The other question with regard to the education of pauper children was more important. The petitioner was, he believed, a Mr. Campbell, who had recently become a convert to the Roman Catholic religion, and who had interested himself greatly in the welfare of the poor. With regard to these children, Sir John M'Neill said that great advantages had been found to arise from the practice of boarding out poor children amongst the neighbouring peasants, one, two, or three to each family. They were thus brought up to cherish feelings of independence, and rarely relapsed into pauperism; whereas the result of retaining children in the poor house was that they looked upon pauperism as their natural condition, and came back constantly upon the parish. But in Scotland it was not always possible to find suitable Roman Catholic families amongst whom to board children of Roman Catholic parents; and it, therefore, no doubt, had sometimes happened that Roman Catholic children had been boarded with Protestant families. Still this was avoided whenever it was possible, and the Board were extremely anxious to provide properly for the education of children in the religion of their parents. Each child was registered as being of the religious persuasion of its parents, and the natural and legal right of that child to re-
  1364
  ceive education in the same form of religion was distinctly recognized. He did not believe there was any necessity for any change in the law, or for any alteration in the construction of the Poor Law Board in Scotland as at present constituted. All who knew Sir John M'Neill, who had performed so many important public services, would feel quite sure that he would endeavour to enforce the rules of the Board, which met the exigencies of all these cases, without the smallest bias from sectarian feeling.
  THE EARL OF WICKLOWsaid, he knew nothing of the grounds of complaint in Scotland, but regretted that the noble Duke had confined his explanation to that country, for he knew that in England the boards of guardians would not give Roman Catholic clergymen permission for visiting in the workhouse paupers of his own flock. In Essex especially was this the case, and the consequence was that they were obliged to take for their children the religious education there given, or go without education altogether. This matter was one which required some alteration.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, he understood that a Select Committee of the House of Commons was at present engaged with the consideration of this very question, and probably action would be soon taken upon the Report.
  Petitions ordered to lie on the Table.

  LEASES, &c., BY INCUMBENTS RESTRICTION BILL.—COMMITTEE.
  Order of the Day for the House to go into Committee read.
  LORD LYTTELTON, in moving that the House go into Committee on this Bill, said, that he had received a suggestion from a correspondent, which tended to modify the objections formerly made to one of its objects. He originally proposed that existing incumbents should not he debarred from issuing leases; to which it was objected that this exemption might tend to prejudice their successors. The proposition was that without taking away the right to lease from existing incumbents, it should be restrained and modified.
  THE BISHOP OF LONDONsaid, he thought their Lordships ought to have a great deal more information before they allowed this measure to become law. In London and other cities and towns the livings depended to a great extent on the power of granting building leases. In the

  1365
  case of bishops and chapters there were restrictions as to renewal of leases, but the interests of the bishops and chapters were protected by Act of Parliament. He thought it would be a hard thing if in any parish it turned out that no proper provision could be made for the minister during a period of perhaps forty years. It would be desirable before legislating on this subject to have more information than they now possessed of the number of cases and the amount of property which would be affected by the Bill. He hoped that, at all events, the noble Lord would take care to make the change gradual, so as to inflict as little injury as possible on existing incumbents.
  THE BISHOP OF OXFORDsaid, they ought to have more information, for at present he thought they were legislating in the dark. Even with the Amendment which the noble Lord intended to make, there would not he adequate provision made for incumbents. He thought they would not be justified at present in passing the Bill with their eyes open.
  Amendments made; the Report thereof to be received on Monday, the 10th inst.

ITALY—THE ELECTIONS.

  QUESTION.
  THE MARQUESS OF NORMANBY, who had given notice to ask Her Majesty's Government, Whether they have any Objection to give a Copy or Extract of any Despatch from Sir James Hudson forwarding the Report made to the Parliament now sitting at Turin as to the numbers of Electors qualified to vote at the late Election, and of those who did give their Suffrages to the present Sitting Members, and of those who voted for other Candidates, said, he had to request their Lordships' attention for a few minutes while he explained the reasons which had induced him to put his question to the noble Lord the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. He believed that latterly it had been found more convenient, when the object was simply to obtain information on matters of fact, to put a question rather than to make a formal Motion for papers, and he was very glad to adopt that course, because he did not really desire to make a distinct Motion for the papers of which he had given notice, as he did not suppose there could be any objection to give in the regular course the information he sought, because every one of the blue books contained de-
  1366
  spatches from our Ministers in the different kingdoms of Italy that had been recently annexed to Sardinia, giving the results of the recent decisions by universal suffrage in those provinces. He thought when the Sardinian Chambers themselves had made public all the information he wanted, it was not likely that Her Majesty's Government would refuse to give that information. Since he came down to the House one or two of his noble Friends had asked him what he had discovered about the Sardinian Chambers. He did not pretend to claim the merit of any discovery, because these Returns had been published and commented upon in many papers revolutionary as well as anti-revolutionary in France, Germany, and Italy. What was, perhaps, more important was, that the results of these elections had created an immense amount of dissatisfaction with the party which was called the party of action. When it was seen how few persons out of those who were qualified had availed themselves of the privileges of the franchise it was not wonderful that that party should say, "Let us have a Constituent Assembly, or at least let us have elections more like our neighbours." He was still more confirmed in the idea that Government would not refuse the Report he asked for when he read the last despatch of Lord John Russell, dated the 21st of January, which had been presented to the House since he (the Marquess of Normanby) gave notice of his question,
  "Foreign Office, January 21, 1861.
  "Sir,—I have not taken any official notice of the Decrees you sent me, annexing, not to Sardinia, but to 'the Italian State,' Naples, Sicily, Umbria, and the Marches.
  "In fact, the votes by universal suffrage which have taken place in those Kingdoms and Provinces appear to Her Majesty's Government to have little validity. These votes are nothing more than a formality following upon acts of popular insurrection, or successful invasion, or upon Treaties, and do not in themselves apply any independent exercise of the will of the nation in whose name they are given."
  In that despatch Lord John Russell further alluded to his previous despatch of the 31st of August, omitting all reference to what had occurred in the meantime. But the main point for which he referred to this despatch was that in it Lord John Russell, commenting on the vote for annexation by universal suffrage, said that Her Majesty's Government attributed to that vote "little validity." The noble

  1367
  Lord added that these votes were little' more than a formality, following on popular action or a successful invasion. He was not surprised that the noble Lord the Foreign Secretary should have specially alluded in this despatch to the case of Naples, because, in point of fact, the annexation of that country was carried into effect by a foreign army. There were also the volunteers of General Garibaldi, and that general announced the fact of the annexation before he had consulted the people at all. Treason, founded on corruption, effected the deposition of the King, who was unable to disengage himself from the treachery of Liborio Romano. But when freed from this nest of traitors the attached portion of his army and his people rallied round him. The noble Lord the Foreign Secretary had very naturally inserted a reference to successful invasion in his enumeration of the grounds of annexation; because, in point of fact, there was now the fullest proof—the authority of the Sardinian Generals—that General Garibaldi would have been driven out of the Kingdom of Naples but for the intervention of a foreign army—the army, that was to say, of the King of Sardinia. They had the celebrated letter from General Cialdini to General Garibaldi, in which he said to that gallant adventurer, "Nothing could be worse than your position on the Volturno." He had also seen, within the last few days, a pamphlet put forth by certain officers in the Neapolitan army who had been conspiring against their King, and used to meet at the House of the Sardinian Minister. They were promised certain things, and they were now complaining that those promises had not been fulfilled. The pamphlet also contained the answer of General Fanti, Minister of War, who is there said to to have replied—
  "You are not rewarded because what you did was not of the slightest use—what you promised to do was not required of you, because by the Sardinian army, and by the Sardinian army alone, the result was effected; and if it had not been for our intervention at the Volturno General Garibaldi would have been taken and shot."
  If the noble Lord the Foreign Secretary did not think there was any ground for assenting to the annexation up to the time of the meeting of the Sardinian Parliament, it became most important to ascertain what validity could be attached to the acts of that Parliament which, by his own account, had subsequently induced him to accept national changes such as those which had re-
  1368
  cently taken place in Italy. When the population of a great country amounted to some 23,000,000, one naturally looked to see the proportion of that number who actually could and did vote. It appeared that, taking the whole population of Italy to amount to 23,000,000—which it did, because, although they must exclude Venetia and the Roman States, they must take in the islands of Sardinia and Sicily, the whole number of voters inscribed upon the electoral register, taking Italy from the Alps to Cape Pesaro, was only 420,000. But their Lordship's expectations would be still further disappointed when they heard that out of that number who were registered only 171,000 voted—a number which was rather less than the registered voters of the eight metropolitan boroughs and of the county of Middlesex. By the electoral law of Italy it was declared that no election could be valid unless the representative was elected by at least one-third of the registered electors. Notwithstanding this 130 Members were returned to the existing Parlialiament by less than one-third of their constituencies. He merely mentioned this as showing the want of interest taken in the elections by the people, and how inveterate was the general apathy. It appeared, further, that of the 444 Members constituting the Italian Parliament, fifty-seven were returned by less than 200 electors, 161 by less than 300; 359 by less than 500, only twenty-one had more than 700 votes, only nine more than 800; and only two more than 1,000. It should be borne in mind that each of those Members who could only unite so very few suffrages are nominally the representatives of an equalized district or area of a population of 50,000 inhabitants. When two-thirds of the registered electors abstained from voting, the election by law was void, and the proceedings adjourned to another day, but upon that second occasion no restriction as to numbers was required. Thus, no fewer than 130 Members were returned by less than one third of the electors. Did this show that enthusiasm on the part of the Italian people in favour of the united kingdom that the partizans of Sardinia would have us believe? Considering how much had been said of the desire of the Italians for popular institutions, he thought that those figures would he regarded as somewhat surprising. Naples had 12,549 electors out of a population of 600,000; only 4,009 of those voted, or one in three of the electors, and one in 150 of the popu-

  1369
  lation. Milan in its five districts had 8,609 electors, of whom the five Members had the votes of 2,668, or less than one third; at Genoa, in none of the three colleges did one half of the electors take part, and in two out of the three colleges less than one third. In Tuscany, with the single exception of Leghorn, in no district did the majority of those inscribed vote at the election. At Florence the electors qualified were 6,255, but those who voted for the four Members were only 2,094. In Bologna less than two-fifths voted, and in none of the other Papal provinces did 400 electors vote—in many the number was under 200. At Ancona, the town which General Cialdini had taken by assault, and was said to have bombarded for twelve hours after the capitulation had been settled with General Lamoriciere, Count Cavour had made a Parliamentary invasion and was elected, but 207 were all the votes he could obtain. Napoleon Pepoli, a relative of the Emperor of the French, was even less fortunate at Perugia, for only 260 persons voted for him. Now it must be recollected that there were no public meetings, no nomination speeches, nothing but the votes put into the ballot boxes by which the feelings of the people could be known. He mentioned these facts in order to make a sufficient ground for asking for the production of the Report made to the Parliament sitting at Turin, which would show those results. Count Cavour had stated in a despatch to Lord John Russell that the Parliament just assembled contained the principal men in Italy; but they must recollect that a different statement had been made by an authority whom the noble Lords opposite would scarcely regard as less important than Count Cavour—namely, General Garibaldi. His statement was at variance entirely with that of Count Cavour. He had said the principal men were not in the House, but characterized those who were in terms which he (the Marquess of Normanby) would not repeat, as the terms used were opprobious, but conveyed the idea that those to whom they were addressed were in a state of servitude to the Ministry. He would not further mention the vaunts which Count Cavour made as to the state of Italy, but he would only remark that last year, when he (the Marquess of Normanby) made some observations as to arrests and other proceedings in Italy, he was at a great disadvantage, because, though he stated what he knew to be facts, he did so without
  1370
  being in a position to give names or authorities. At that time there was not the slightest power existing in those provinces where a temporary Government was established to write anything in the public press. Not a single phrase was allowed that was not agreeable to the views of the Minister; but since then papers had been established throughout Italy opposing the progress of the Revolution, which were conducted with great ability and had attained large circulation, which fully bore out the statements he last year made to their Lordships. These papers are still continued in spite of the Government prosecutions of greater frequency and severity than had ever before been known in any country pretending to allow any liberty to the press. As a proof that he was not wrong in questioning the statements made to the British Ministry by the Provisional Governments last year, he should only quote an anecdote published by Signor Brofferio, an ultra Liberal deputy of great ability. On the occasion of his visit to Florence he complained to one of the Ministers, whose name he gave, of the untruths they bad circulated, who replied—" Caro mio colla verita non si governa" (with the truth you cannot govern). He was aware that it was a thankless task to be frequently pressing on their Lordships and on the Government views which did not agree with the sympathies by which they were animated—sympathies which he ventured to think were all the stronger from the fact that their knowledge of events in Italy was of a limited character. But he was induced to bring forward the subject because some of the principles laid down in Lord John Russell's despatch of the 27th October were calculated to endanger the vital interests of England, and, as connected with her colonial empire, to diminish her greatness. His object was to work while it was yet time, to arrest if possible the wide spread ruin which threatened to annihilate the material interests of Italy for ages to come, and to avert the consequences which the reckless course of her present rulers was likely to draw upon the country which, next to his own, he regarded with the greatest affection. The noble Marquess concluded by putting his question.
  LORD WODEHOUSEsaid, he hoped he should not be charged with having shown unwillingness to give information to the House, or to answer any question put to him, acting on behalf of the Secretary of Foreign Affairs; but he appealed to the

  1371
  House, on the present occasion, whether it was necessary or convenient that they should enter on a detailed discussion with regard to the election of Members of Parliament in a Foreign State, the details of which they were not acquainted with, and which, if they were acquainted with them, he thought it was not desirable that they should discuss? The answer he had to give to the noble Marquess was, that no despatch had been received from Sir James Hudson, at Turin, containing the information that the noble Marquess asked for, and consequently no despatch could be produced on the subject. His noble Friend had alluded to Returns which were furnished with reference to the voting by universal suffrage, on the question of the annexation of several States to Sardinia. Now, he need not point out to their Lordships that a voting of that kind, which related to the annexation of certain States, was of a very peculiar nature, and naturally formed the subject of despatches, because such matters related to changes in sovereign States, and, therefore, affected the relation of this country to them. But if they were to have the returns of different elections, if they were to examine into those elections, and if they were to go into questions whether the suffrage were too restricted, or whether it was a franchise that would fairly test the disposition of the people, he must say that they would be engaging in a controversy in which they could not be fit judges. The noble Marquess had himself furnished a sufficient answer to his own remark as to the despatch of his noble Friend (Lord John Russell), in which he referred to the Italian Parliament as being entitled to act authoritatively in all matters concerning the country, because the noble Marquess had referred to Count Cavour's despatch, in which he stated, and as far as he (Lord Wodehouse) knew with perfect truth, that the Italian Parliament contained men of the highest distinction in the country, and who might be said fairly to represent the opinions of the nation. Without entering into details in connection with the Italian elections, he might, as to the smallness of the number who were stated to have voted, remind the noble Marquess that in this country it was not always found that all those who were registered voted at the elections. For himself, he thought they might fairly regard the Italian Parliament as expressing the general opinions and feelings of the Italian Kingdom, and as such entitled to be considered by Foreign
  1372
  Governments as a fair exponent of the desires of the Italian people.
  House adjourned at half-past Six o'clock, till To-morrow, half-past Ten o'clock.