Lords Sitting of 17 March 1862

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1a Consolidated Fund (£18,000,000); Crown Suits (Isle of Man); Transfer of Stocks (Ireland).
ITALY.

  MOTION FOR PAPERS.
  THE MARQUESS OF NORMANBYrose to move an Address to Her Majesty for—
  "Copies or Extracts of any Despatches from Sir James Hudson, Her Majesty's Minister at Turin, relating to Government Prosecutions of the Press during the last Two Years; Also,
  "Copies or Extracts of any Despatches from Sir James Hudson, or from Mr. Bonham, Her Majesty's Consul at Naples, reporting the Issue of certain Proclamations or Orders from Generals Cialdini and Vorelli, from Commandants Gelateri, Narbone, De Virgili, Faieno, and others, whereby the Population of various Portions of the Neapolitan Territory were last Year subjected to arbitrary Military Execution without any Form of Process and without any previous Declaration of a State of Siege: And also,
  "Copies or Extracts of any Despatches from Sir James Hudson, calling the Attention of Her Majesty's Government to Statements of Fact as to the Condition of Southern Italy made by Nea-
  1566
  politan Deputies in the Parliament at Turin, and reported in the official Records of that Assembly."
  The noble Marquess said, that some evenings since, in attempting to give an answer to the naturally very indignant inquiry of his noble Friend (Lord Derby) respecting the infamous proclamation of Colonel Fantoni, his noble Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs had not only denied the authenticity of the proclamation as published in the Armonia, but had insinuated that the document was merely a reprint of a proclamation issued many years ago, and by a different Government; and in thus charging the Armonia with having fabricated this document, the noble Lord said that that newspaper had ventured to do so, relying on the knowledge that the Italian Government would never institute any prosecution. And when, a few evenings later, he (the Marquess of Normanby) postponed for a few days the question of which he had given notice, on the ground that it had come to his knowledge that this cruel proclamation was not exceptional in its nature, but in reality formed part of an infamous system established by the Piedmontese invaders, the noble Earl said that he did not accept his (the Marquess of Normanby's) version of his speech as perfectly accurate. The noble Lord the Foreign Secretary would not, he supposed, dispute that in making that statement he had a twofold object—to charge the newspaper Armonia with having forged or fabricated that proclamation, and to attribute to the newspaper the motive for having done so—not perhaps the most worthy of motives—the knowledge that the mild Government under which Italians lived would never cause the paper under any circumstances to be punished. The most serious part of that charge had since been, he would not say withdrawn, but destroyed by the noble Earl himself, who had admitted the authenticity of the proclamation; and there were circumstances connected with that paper such as to render it improbable that the imputed motive could in any way be justified. That paper was established in 1848 in defence of order and for the maintenance of religion and the throne. It was supported by persons distinguished in their public career, of high attainments, and much beloved and respected by all who knew them. The paper had also the advantage of obtaining the aid of one of the most eminent periodical

  1567
  writers in Italy, a man as remarkable for his integrity as for his ability. It was not only read on the south side of the Alps, but wherever the Italian tongue was understood. The noble Earl was reported to have stated that "Cavour gave orders that no Government prosecutions should be issued against the Conservative papers, saying, 'I am determined they shall not be prosecuted for anything they say;'" and the noble Earl added, "This may in. some degree account for the licence to which these papers have given themselves up." He presumed this assurance had been given to his noble Friend in 1857, when he was at Turin. Would his noble Friend's subsequent experience lead him to place such implicit reliance on any statement made five years ago by Count Cavour as that he should express that reliance in that House? He thought that the history of Savoy and Nice would show this House that the most solemn assurances of Count Cavour did not survive five days, much less five years. Why, in 1859, three weeks after the noble Earl took office as Foreign Secretary, a decree, signed by Count Cavour, had been issued, not only prosecuting but suspending for three months this very paper—the Armonia. Such a decree ought to have come under the cognizance of the noble Earl. The cause of the suspension was, that after the battle of Solferino, where the Sardinian army had been saved from destruction by the victory obtained on the other wing of the allies, the Sardinian Government tried every means to thwart the avowed policy of their ally and to shake the authority of the Pope; and with this view repeated attacks having been made on what were called the atrocities of Perugia, the Armonia retorted by publishing an article, saying, "Take care what you are about; do not repeat this too often; we know something of these sad necessities. We know it is impossible to suppress a revolution of this kind without resorting to measures which may be afterwards regretted. Have you heard nothing of the atrocious crimes committed at Genoa? Have you not read the proclamation of General Marmora? What you have said may or may not be true; it rests on an ipse dixit. We have no desire to raise the question now; but if you continue your attacks, we shall be obliged to state what happened at Genoa, when General La Marmora himself spoke of the deplorable excesses committed in the habitations of the
  1568
  Genoese whilst the men were fighting." He felt convinced no law officer of the Crown would assert that for such an article as this a Government prosecution could be instituted in any country with the slightest pretensions to liberty. He would not go through the details of the different prosecutions from time to time levelled against the Italian press, which completely dissipated the illusions of the noble Earl as to Count Cavour's assurances; he would simply state the fact that on the 6th of March, 1861, a few weeks before the death of Count Cavour, five Government prosecutions were instituted at Milan and Turin against three Conservative newspapers. In the case of the Armonia, a sentence of two years' imprisonment and 3,000 lire fine was imposed; of the Piemonte, two years' imprisonment, and 3,000 lire fine; and of the Campanile, four months' imprisonment and 1,000 lire. Those decisions were given at Turin; and at Milan on the same day other sentences of six months' imprisonment and 2,000 lire fine were pronounced against the Piemonte, and three months' imprisonment and 2,000 lire fine against the Campanile. These heavy penalties had been provoked, in the case of the Armonia, not by the publication of any original editorial matter, but simply for printing, without any comment, a letter by M. Rochejaquelein, which had come from France, and had passed through the Post Office. The Campanile had treated the speech of the King, not as coming from the throne, but according to the constitutional theory that it was the speech of his Ministers; and the Piemonte expressed some doubts as to the amount of enthusiasm with which the King had been received in one of the provincial progresses. He hoped, with these facts in the possession of the House, they would have no more of the excessive mildness to newspapers of Count Cavour's Government, and that noble Lords would in future take more pains in acquainting themselves with the circumstances of which they spoke. The noble Duke, whom he did not see opposite (the Duke of Argyll), certainly brought before the notice of their Lordships a most extraordinary story. His statement was, somewhere in society, on the 26th of February, he met an Italian gentleman, who told him a very long story, of which the noble Duke retailed the substance to their Lordships; and this was the statement he made. The noble Duke

  1569
  said he had inquired of the Italian gentleman, as well known in England as in Italy, whether he had just arrived from Turin, and whether he had heard anything of the proclamation; to which the Italian gentleman had replied that he did recollect that some time ago such a proclamation had appeared in the Armonia, but that strict inquiry showed it to be without truth; that it was merely a rechauffé of an old proclamation in Murat's time. Now, what were the facts? The date of the paper was the 19th of February, and the gentleman who had been talking to the noble Duke having just arrived in this country on the 26th of February, it would appear that within seven days he had come from Turin, and had heard a short time before that such a thing had appeared in the Armonia. He (the Marquess of Normanby) did not know, nor did he wish to know, the name of this Italian gentleman; but he thought that he was the last person whom any of their Lordships would, if they knew him, consult in future upon any question of fact.
  He would now call attention to some statements made by his noble Friend the Foreign Secretary the other night with reference to the state of affairs in Naples—statements which, in his opinion, were no more accurate than were his accusations of forgery against the Armonia, The noble Earl stated, to his extreme astonishment, that there was no civil war in Naples, and that the bands which were to be found in arms in that kingdom never numbered more than twenty, or at most forty men. Under these circumstances, it was most extraordinary that the Piedmontese Government during the last year should have maintained 80,000 men in the kingdom of Naples, and that, in the face of the statement that not more than forty men could ever be brought together to face these troops, Colonel Fantoni should have been defeated on the Gargano on the 20th of February, with the loss of men, of horses, and of cannon. How was it possible that such an army as Colonel Fantoni commanded could be defeated by forty men and with such results? The colonel will he more notorious as an executioner than famous as a commander. The noble Earl also said that these conflicts went on only on the Papal frontier; but the very next proclamation, with reference to which a question was raised in another place, was issued at the very extremity of Calabria. How did the noble Earl explain that? More than that
  1570
  —that very morning accounts had been received that a band consisting of nearly 1,000 men had entered and taken possession of the town of Altamura, a place having a population of 16,000 persons; that the National Guard had refused to act against them, but remained under arms for the protection of order; and that about 500 of the band had been detached to another part of the country, and had defeated, with great loss, a battalion of the 50th Regiment. All these facts came through a correspondent who had hitherto proved himself very accurate; and they threw a considerable doubt on the statement of the noble Earl. The Government did not confine its operations against its opponents to measures warranted by the law. It employed both the law and the lawless. On the 2nd of August, 1861, a sect called "Cameriste Bastanatori," enrolled under the direction of Spaventa, Minister of the Police, attacked the offices of the following papers:—Gazetta de Mezzodi, Esperanza, Araldo, Unità, Cattolico, and Settimana. They broke and destroyed everything, and threatened the editors with death. The Government looked on with indifference, and the presence of the police legalized the outrage. In the month of July previous the mob broke into an office of one of these journalists, destroyed the presses, arrested the responsible director of the paper, and, in order to obtain the names of his partners, subjected him to torture. On the 9th of November the Cameriste burnt in the public street all the numbers of the Opposition journals which were exposed for sale—namely, the Stampa Meridionale, Araldo, Cattolico, and Settimana. The day after, the offices of all the above papers were again broken open by the Cameriste, who destroyed everything. The next day the same violence continued, and the editors were threatened with death. Cognelli, of the Stampa Meridionale, demanded an audience of General Delia Marmora, and, being unable to obtain it, escaped on board a French steamer. Ventimiglia, director of the Settimana, equally unable to obtain a personal hearing, wrote to the General to say that he must suspend his publication, because the Government was either an accomplice in these proceedings or too weak to protect any one, but that he should protest in the face of Europe; and, in fact, in a few days a protest appeared, which was published by most of the continental papers.

  1571
  On the 14th of January the Cattolico was sequestrated for inserting a letter copied from the Lombardo of Milan, which had not been sequestered for its original publication. The grounds stated for most of these seizures is the republication of articles from other Italian papers, against which no similar measures had been attempted. As late as the 2nd of February, 1862, the Commandant of the National Guard, Topputi, wrote to the Procuratore of the Criminal Court, directing him to double his severity against the Opposition journals. The director of the Cattolico received an order to present every day a copy of his paper two hours before it was published to the Questore. In spite of all this persecution, fresh papers come out every day, and are read by the public with the greatest avidity. The lawless conduct of the Piedmontese Government was not confined to Neapolitan or even to Italian territory. They had ventured to take into their hands the punishment of an expression of opinion which offended them on British territory. The commander of a Sardinian corvette, feeling aggrieved at something that had appeared in a newspaper published at Malta, landed, accompanied by his lieutenant, went to the office of the newspaper and committed a brutal assault on the editor in the presence of his daughter. She, however, held the assailant until the police came up and took the two offenders into custody. When the matter was brought under the notice of the Sardinian Consul, he demanded their liberation, and was reported to have said that the Maltese ought to be thankful that the commander had not landed his troops. Here was the same lawless attempt to suppress the free expression of public opinion. The captain and his lieutenant were, however, tried and sentenced to imprisonment—the former for three months, and the other for a lesser period. In proof of the barbarous and ruthless conduct of the Piedmontese Generals, he might refer to other proclamations. On one occasion General Cialdini telegraphed to the Governor of Molise—
  "Have it published that I shoot every armed peasant that I take. I have already begun today,"
  On the 2nd of November, 1860, the following order was issued at Teramo:—
  "All the communes of the provinces in which reactionary movements shall show themselves, or have shown themselves, are declared in a state of siege. In all the communes a rigorous and general
  1572
  disarmament shall take place. All the citizens who fail to give up arms, of whatsoever kind they may be, shall be punished with the utmost rigour of military law, by an immediate Council of War. Gatherings shall be dispersed by armed force; reactionists taken with arms shall be shot. All who spread alarming reports shall be considered reactionists, and punished summarily by military law.—P. DE VIRGILI."
  In August, 1861, General Facino addressed a proclamation to the inhabitants of Voltarino, which was in the following terms:—
  "This day I quit Voltarino, but I warn you that if the brigands return I shall return also. I shall then set fire to the four corners of your town, and I shall thus put an end to your incessant reaction. Take my word of honour as a soldier, I shall keep this promise; and in the meantime bear in mind that, out of a population of 3,000, one old man, Nicolas Dandolo, alone resisted the reactionists, and you pretend not to be their accomplices.—The Commander of the Troops in the Capitanata, FACINO."
  Last year it was stated that General Pinelli had been recalled for writing to a newspaper to seek approbation for his military acts. But no censure was passed on him for declaring in one of his proclamations that he "would shoot every one who did not bow down before the Cross of Savoy." He was also the author of the following order:—
  "Soldiers!—Be inexorable as fate; against such enemies pity is a crime. We will drive out and annihilate the sacerdotal vampire—the Vicar, not of Christ, but of Satan. We will purify with fire and with steel the regions infected with his impure slime. Ascoli, February 3, 1861.—General PINELLI."
  Yet last Session, when the Premier of England was informed of some of these horrible incidents, and asked whether the Government would not interfere to mitigate such atrocities, his reply was, "I have much satisfaction in informing the hon. Gentleman that Her Majesty's Government will do no such thing." The noble Lord was also reported to have expressed his approval of the successful energy of General Cialdini and Pinelli, and their colleagues. He would also call their Lordships' attention to the speeches of some of the Neapolitan deputies, denouncing the cruel and oppressive conduct of the Piedmontese Government. He would like to hear what Sir James Hudson had reported of the speeches of Signori Ricciardi, Ferrari, and many others; the first affirming, without contradiction, that if the plebiscite was now renewed, the result would not be in favour of annexation; the second detailing the horrors of

  1573
  the burning of Pontelandolfo, and what the British Minister said of the threatened expulsion from the Chamber of Deputies of the Due de Maddeloni for proposing an inquiry into the unhappy state of his country. We heard enough formerly of the state of the Neapolitan prisons. On the 14th of October there appeared a protest on the part of sixty-one of the first advocates of the Royal Courts against the arbitrary illegalities now practised in the prisons. Most of these advocates either were now, or had been, called Liberals. He believed the noble Earl (Earl Russell), in the statement which he made with respect to the proclamation to which attention was called a few evenings ago, expressed an opinion that it had not been acted upon. He was very anxious to know whether the noble Earl adhered to that opinion, because it was stated in five or six different papers, French and Italian, that upon the 20th of February four women were shot for having in their houses more bread than was required for one day's consumption. As to the prosecutions instituted by the Piedmontese Government against the press, he wished to point out that they had always been directed against leading articles which contained comments tending, as it was said, to bring the Government into contempt, and that the Piedmontese Government had never attempted to prosecute for the publication of facts most injurious to its character. Some three or four months ago a pamphlet was published at Brussels and extensively circulated there. It was then translated into Italian and circulated in Florence and Naples. It was translated into German, and was now translated into English. The Piedmontese Government had neither prosecuted the publishers nor denied the truth of the assertions which the pamphlet contained. It was generally known to have been written by Curletti, a secret agent of police, who was well known to have been confidentially employed in all the localities to which he referred, and he hoped the noble Earl would give his attention to one or two facts which were narrated with clearness and circumstantiality by the writer. Curletti was at Genoa at the time of the so-called Garibaldi expedition. Garibaldi was alleged to have forcibly seized certain vessels for the purposes of his expedition. The pamphlet stated—and the statement had never been disproved—that these vessels were not seized at all; that they were bought by agents of the King, and by
  1574
  them handed over to Garibaldi. The names were given of those who completed the purchase—General St. Frond for the King, Ricciardi for Farini, and Medici for Garibaldi. The name and address of the King's notary is also given. Another fact referred to a person whom it had been incidentally necessary for him to notice—Dr. Farini. Curletti stated that after Farini had kept open house for a fortnight at the Palace at Modena, with all the Duke's establishment, he employed him (Curletti) to write a communiqué to the Bolognese papers, saying that the Duke had left nothing behind him but bare walls. This was at the time when the royal plate was sent by hint to be melted down. Farini had given it out that the Duke had taken everything and left nothing behind. When he (the Marquess of Normanby) charged Farini with taking all the Duke's linen from the palace, he was contradicted; but having written to the Modenese Ministers, not to inquire into the facts, because he never doubted their accuracy, but as to the proofs, he was told that the woman who picked out the crown over the letter F in the Duke of Modena's linen could he produced. Curletti also stated an incident of unpardonable atrocity. Upon Colonel Anviti being arrested, he was despatched to Parma with orders from Farini to take the colonel out of prison and to allow the populace to dispose of him. Curletti accordingly went with an order to the gaoler at Parma, and received the Colonel; but other agents of the King, who were subsequently rewarded, seized the unfortunate man, killed him, and dragged his body through the streets. He (Curletti) states himself to have received the Order of St. Maurice for his share in this wickedness. He thought that any man having the least regard for his own character would hasten to disprove, if he could, such statements; but the King of Piedmont had not instituted any prosecution for this publication.
  He had to thank their Lordships for the patience with which they had on many occasions listened to him when expressing views which were not entertained by Her Majesty's Government, nor by a large proportion of their Lordships. On some former occasions he had laboured under great disadvantages, because he was unable to give authorities for the information which he had received, and which ha been completely confirmed by subsequent events. Till the annexation had been ac-

  1575
  complished, nothing was allowed to be published in the provinces which had not the sanction of the Government, and for three whole months the whole of his correspondence, which had at first passed through the regular post, had been stopped. But the Government had a right to expect that its agents on the spot would transmit to them accurate information of what was going on; and Parliament had equally the right to expect that the Government would give them that information when received. And it was to ascertain how matters stood in this respect that he brought forward the present Motion. It was known everywhere, except in England, that the so-called Italian unity is now farther than ever from possible realization. What is the state of that unhappy country? Universal anarchy, a bankrupt treasury, doubled taxation, ruined commerce, levies oppressive and inefficient, desertions multiplied; throughout the whole of Central Italy, in Tuscany, Modena, Parma, and the Romagna, general discontent, verging on open revolt; in the South, famine and indiscriminate military massacres; in the North, two Parliaments sitting in rivalry to each other—the one self-summoned, republican in its character, and divided in its allegiance between Mazzini and Garibaldi; the other dragging on a miserable existence, amidst the apathy of its members and the neglect of the people. When a single election occurs, it is hardly possible to collect the number of voters required; but when the second trial comes, and the election must be definitive, the choice made is almost always the person most opposed to the Ministry. Perhaps noble Lords opposite may think that to lose every election is the normal condition of a popular Government. He did not despair of the future of Italy; he believed that interesting country would be both independent and prosperous when the impostures of the last few years had been swept away. The noble Viscount at the head of the Government was reported to have said, "That there was no longer any such thing as the kingdom of the Two Sicilies." He denied that such was the fact. It required more than the empty boast of a Foreign Minister to destroy an independent kingdom which had existed since the Norman Conquest. The kingdom of the Two Sicilies still existed in the hearts of the people, in the rights of the Sovereign; and if the doctrine of non-intervention, which had been so long professed and so con-
  1576
  stantly violated, were really and honestly carried out, it would exist de facto when the crotchets of the two noble Lords had passed away, and were no longer remembered in any part of the Peninsula. The noble Marquess concluded by moving an Address for the documents.
  EARL RUSSELL: I am sorry to have to trouble your Lordships again upon the subject of the Proclamation said to have been issued by General Fantoni, but the statement made by my noble Friend (the Marquess of Normanby) requires still further explanation. My noble Friend has taken the course—not a very convenient one—of referring to the reports of the speech I made the other night, and criticising the statements contained in it. That debate arose out of a question put by the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Derby)—acting on that occasion as the deputy of the noble Marquess—respecting this Proclamation. The noble Earl did not confine himself to an inquiry respecting its genuineness, but he spoke with great indignation of the conduct of the Government of Italy which had sanctioned such a proclamation. My noble Friend says that in answering the noble Earl my motives were twofold. [The Marquess of NORMANBY: That was the impression left.] I cannot see how my noble Friend, who was not here, could tell what my motives were better than myself; but I can assure my noble Friend that my motives were not twofold. I simply endeavoured to account for the proclamation—not having received any account of it from Sir James Hudson at the time—by the supposition that it was not genuine. My noble Friend says also that I charged the editors of the Armonia with falsehood. I do not recollect the exact language which I used, but I certainly did not mean to make any such charge. What I meant to say was, that it was possible that they had taken this proclamation, which was not a genuine one, and had published it as if it were. I still believe that that was a very probable thing. The Italian friend of the Lord Privy Seal, of whom the noble Marquess spoke, alluded not to this proclamation, because he had left Turin some time before, but to some incident which had happened before, and he supposed this might have been a case of the same kind. We neither of us knew anything of this proclamation. I had received no information about it from Turin, the Government at Turin new nothing of it, and the Commander-in-Chief at Naples

  1577
  knew nothing of it; and yet, according to the noble Marquess and the noble Earl opposite, the Government of Italy was to be blamed, and to be held up to Europe as a Government unworthy of respect on account of this proclamation. I have received since then a despatch from Mr. Bonham, our Consul at Naples, and, perhaps, the best account I can give of that proclamation is to read this letter to your Lordships. Perhaps noble Lords on the other side will receive it with more readiness as it does not come from our Minister at Turin. Mr. Bonham says—
  "Naples, March 6.
  "My Lord,—I have the honour to report to your Lordship that having seen in The Times of the 26th of February a report of a conversation in the House of Lords relative to a proclamation issued in these provinces, of which I had not previously heard, I called on General La Marmora to ask some information about it. His Excellency told me that the first he heard of it was an inquiry by telegraph from Turin respecting a proclamation said to have been issued by a General Fantoni, there being no general of that name in the service. He at one proceeded, however, to investigate the matter, and found that a Major Fantoni, commanding a battalion, had in effect drawn up such a proclamation and had it printed in Lucera. Having then submitted it to the General commanding the district, that officer at once disapproved and disavowed it. It was set aside and not acted upon in any way. Some person, however, having obtained a copy, sent it, it would appear, to the Armonia at Turin, in which it was published. His Excellency added that he had communicated all this by telegraph to Turin, some days ago; and doubtless your Lordship has been already informed of the circumstance by Her Majesty's Envoy at Turin. I, however, write to state to your Lordship that this proclamation was not published either in the official or any other journal in these provinces until just now, that its publication in the Armonia having attracted attention in England, it has been copied into the journal called the Popolo d' Italia."
  This is the proclamation which is treated by the noble Marquess as an important act of the Turin Government, and which he says was circulated in all the journals of France and Italy, and must therefore have been known to Her Majesty's Minister at Turin, and on which a grave charge is founded against the Government of Italy. I entirely acquit the Armonia, of course, of having invented the proclamation, or of having been imposed upon by some persons who had; but I ask your Lordships whether, considering the circumstances of the case, there does not remain a very just suspicion that the editors of the Armonia must have known something of this proclamation not having ever been actually issued as an effective document at
  1578
  the time they published it. Is it not possible that at the time they published the proclamation they were perfectly aware, from the persons who sent it to them, that the act of Major Fantoni was not approved by the General of the district, and that it had not been officially sanctioned or published in any way? The noble Earl, therefore, who was my predecessor in office (the Earl of Malmesbury), must see that neither Her Majesty's Minister at Turin, nor Her Majesty's Consul at Naples, was to blame in not having transmitted to me a copy of that proclamation, and in not having asked for instructions with regard to it. My noble Friend (the Marquess of Normanby) next went on to ask several questions about other statements I made with respect to the press in Italy. What I stated then was, that I had a conversation in January, 1857, with Count Cavour, happening to meet him at Nice, when he was in attendance on the King, and I was travelling; and I supposed from that conversation that, as prosecutions were not taking place, the journals practised greater laxity. The noble Marquess, however, referred to certain proceedings which took place two years afterwards—in the year 1859, just after the battle of Solferino. I know not what Count Cavour may have thought it necessary to do; but I know perfectly well that soon after the battle of Solferino, when there was a question of the treaty at Villafranca, Count Cavour retired from office, and for some time was not responsible for what took place. But I say at once that I do not consider that the English Government is responsible for these things; it is the Italian Government alone which is responsible. Her Majesty's Minister at Turin says, and says most justly, that all the prosecutions of the press take place according to judicial forms, that the judges at Turin are appointed for life or during good behaviour, that there is an appeal to a higher Court in case of a conviction, and that he does not therefore consider it his duty to report to his Government every prosecution that takes place, or every judgment or sentence which is pronounced. And I think he did perfectly well. But with regard to this subject, as with regard to many others, I am afraid my noble Friend and myself are utterly at variance. My noble Friend says there have been these numerous prosecutions of the press; that very harsh measures have been resorted to; and, speaking of Naples, he

  1579
  said that not only legal, but illegal measures had been taken in these prosecutions. This may be the case; but my noble Friend must remark that fresh journals come out every day; and the fact that the Armonia and other papers, which are conducted with great ability, are published at Turin, shows that a great change in this respect has taken place in Italy. I can remember, and my noble Friend must remember, the time when there were no prosecutions of the press, because no man in those days was allowed to say anything blaming the Ministers or the Government of the day, even in the most simple and harmless manner. I remember when such an able and moderate paper as the Journal des Débats was not allowed to enter the kingdom of Sardinia, because it was believed that reading even that paper might induce a greater liberty of thought. This is the difference—a main and broad difference—between the Italy of former days and the Italy of the present time—that whereas no lover of freedom was allowed formerly to publish a word or give any opinion in any newspaper tending to the improvement of the law or a modification of the Constitution, now, while there is no doubt a great deal of violence exhibited by those who favour what has recently taken place in Italy, there is, at the same time, great liberty, or, it may be said, great licence allowed to those on the other side, who are evidently and obviously working for the restoration of the old state of things. Then my noble Friend refers to a statement of four women having been shot; but I cannot find that any member of the Italian Government has heard of it, and I certainly have no information on the subject. My noble Friend says I have denied that there is a civil war raging in the south of Italy. I do deny it. These brigands, no doubt, wish for a change of Government and a restoration of the former state of things; but they act as brigands, they do not assemble in armies, there is no great town or fortress of which they have possessed themselves. They merely disturb and destroy, and do all they can to prevent any regular Government from being carried on. They employ the same means by which the brigands of old times created confusion and disturbances in Italy. And, my Lords, we know that the former Government of Naples—though it is the object of my noble Friend's worship—was very bad; brigandage was common, the administra-
  1580
  tion of justice was wofully deficient, men escaped all punishment by bribes. And when a country has been so demoralized by its own Government as Naples has been, it is difficult for any Government to establish a better state of things in less than a generation. If your Lordships will allow me, I will read a despatch from Mr. Bonham, giving another description of the present condition of the country—
  "Naples, March 7, 1862.
  "My Lord,—I have the honour to inform your Lordship that the Vice Consul at Brindisi reports the reappearance of brigands in that neighbourhood. Bands of marauders are also spoken of as having made their appearance in other districts. I asked General La Marmora yesterday what truth there was in these reports. His Excellency stated that bands had appeared in some places, but in small numbers. He added, 'Brigandage in this country is an affair of old date, and it is useless to flatter ourselves that it can be suppressed all at once; until we improve our internal communications by the construction of railroads and of common roads, and have an efficient and properly-organized force of Carabinieri in the country, we cannot hope wholly to eradicate it; but these brigands are mere marauders, and not in any way formidable or important as to numbers.' His Excellency also stated that there had as yet been no disembarkation of adventurers from abroad."
  That is the statement of General La Marmora. He commanded the Sardinian Contingent in the Crimean war, and he must be well known to many officers in Her Majesty's service. I believe General La Marmora's statement is perfectly correct. I also believe he is a man incapable of authorizing unnecessary cruelty. But we know that the army of Italy contains men who were not brought up under a regular military system. The noble Marquess says that great cruelties have been committed, and I fear there is too much truth in that statement. We know how wild were the passions that prevailed on both sides during the conflicts in Italy in 1809 and 1810; we have read accounts of the cruelties inflicted by both sides, of which the memory has been handed down to the present day. We know how little delay there was in the punishment even of Murat, when he landed in arms on the coast of Naples; not twenty-four hours elapsed before he was shot for being in arms against the Government. Can it, then, be wondered at, in the case of the brigands who appear in arms against the present Government, which is the Government de facto, that as much severity is exercised against them as was shown in the punishment of Murat, who had been the King of Naples, acknowledged by

  1581
  nearly all the Courts of Europe? But with respect to these things, as with regard to the prosecutions of the press, I say again that it is not the Government of Great Britain that has to answer for them. We have not to answer for the manner in which the Government of Italy puts down brigandage, nor for any irregularity in the mode in which justice is dispensed. But we do know what is perfectly obvious to all men, that with regard both to the freedom of the press and to religious liberty, the former Governments of Italy never allowed either a free profession of opinion, or any freedom of public worship that was not in conformity with the religion of the State. My noble Friend knows perfectly well what was the condition of things in this respect in Tuscany, the Government of which was allowed to be the mildest form of Government in Italy, There, though people were not molested for not going to mass, yet they were not allowed to meet together for any other form of public worship. Now persons are allowed to entertain their own religious convictions, and are permitted to assemble with others of the same opinions for the purpose of public worship. With regard to the press, there is a great degree of liberty; and a Parliamentary and representative system of Government has been established. All these things are, in the gross, broad lines of distinction between the former and the present Governments of Italy. My noble Friend and I differ on these points; my noble Friend thinks that all that has been done in the last three years ought to be blotted out. He sighs for the days when in Italy there was no religious liberty, no constitutional Government, no freedom of discussion, no representation, [Hear, hear.] My noble Friend seems to deny that; but even if all that has been accomplished in the last three years were done away with; if the kingdom of the Two Sicilies existed as it was four or five years ago; if the Duchies of Tuscany, Modena, and Parma were restored; if these happy times were to be brought back—does my noble Friend indulge the illusion that these Governments would act on the principles the King of Italy has proclaimed? Would they venture to call Parliaments together? Would they allow as much freedom of opinion as the Ammonia and other newspapers publish now? My noble Friend is much deceived if he thinks so, and I cannot think he is so capable of being deceived. When our representative
  1582
  was withdrawn from Naples on account of the manner in which the Government was carried on, this matter was forced on the attention of the late King. The King, who was a shrewd man in a worldly sense, said that representative government was quite incompatible with his rule in Naples; he declared he knew how to govern his own country; he asked to be let alone; he said he would never admit French or English ideas of Government or freedom, for if he did, he should not be able to maintain his authority. He was quite right, and to the day of his death he maintained his authority unimpaired; and if his son were restored, he would, no doubt, with filial piety, imitate his example. The question, therefore, really is whether Italy is to have such a Government as the present, or such Governments as existed four or five years ago. I readily admit that there has been great disorder, that great severities have been exercised, and that the party in power have in certain cases behaved harshly to those opposed to them. But there remains still the great cause of liberty on one hand, and tyranny on the other; that is the great distinction; and, whatever my noble Friend may say, whatever cases he may bring forward, I shall maintain that conviction, and continue to hope that the old Governments of Italy may never be restored. With regard to the papers for which my noble Friend asks, we have no despatches from Sir James Hudson about Government prosecutions, nor has Sir James Hudson or Mr. Bonham alluded to these proclamations. Sir James Hudson has, from time to time, forwarded newspapers containing the debates, and I have read some of the speeches. The members of the Parliament of Turin have with great truth expressed their regret that during the first months of the Government of the King of Italy affairs were very much mismanaged at Naples, and many errors were committed. In this they exercise a due right of criticism. They criticise the conduct of the Government as men will do when brought into a free Parliament; and many of those speeches may have been just, and have, I trust, produced amendment. With regard to General La Marmora, he is a man of high character, and I have heard no impeachment of his conduct. I hope he will be able, not with 80,000, but with 50,000 men, to reduce these provinces to order. My belief is that the Government of Italy will continue, and I trust it may prosper.
  THE EARL OF MALMESBURY: My Lords, we upon this side of the House stand in a most difficult and a very unfair position, because ever since this Italian struggle began no pains have been spared by the party who support the cause of the King of Italy in accusing us—and most falsely accusing us—of being the enemies of the liberty of that country. It was in vain that I myself, for four or five months, acting under the Government and with the approbation of my noble Friend (the Earl of Derby), laboured anxiously to effect the regeneration of that Italy whose condition we deplored as much as any noble Lords opposite could do. We adopted, it is true, in order to effect that purpose, a different policy from that which at last obtained. But even now, at this eleventh hour, and after all the important events which have been accomplished, I do claim some credit for the course which we then followed. Had we been successful, probably the present state of Naples would not have been what it now is. Had we been successful, 100,000 men at least would have been alive who now sleep in their graves. Had we been successful, the northern provinces of Italy would, with the entire approbation of a Congress of European Powers, have obtained constitutional government without the shedding of one drop of blood. But we failed. Austria, whom we wished to support in her lawful occupation of the territories which she held by treaty, must blame herself alone for the failure of our policy; and nothing can be more false or more absurd than to charge me—as I have often been very unfairly charged by almost the whole press of this country—with Austrian partialities; because I defy any one who will take the trouble to read the book which I laid on the table two years ago to find a syllable in one of my letters or despatches which shows any unfair partiality one way or the other. My Lords, I have reaped the reward of that impartiality, for I have been blamed both by Austrians and Italians. In this matter I am in much the position which the noble Earl occupies on the American question, for he also is blamed by North and South for his impartiality in American affairs. At what is said so unfairly by orators and by the press out of doors I am not surprised, for I am accustomed to see misrepresentation for party purposes; but I am surprised to hear the same statements repeated in this House, where there are men who know exactly
  1584
  what our policy was and what we did—men who, if they speak from their own convictions and sense of truth, cannot possibly say that we were opposed to the constitutional liberties of Italy. I was sorry to hear the noble Earl state that my noble Friend behind me (the Earl of Derby) had made an indignant speech against the Piedmontese Government when he asked a question the other evening whether Fantoni's proclamation was true. Now, my noble Friend expressed no such indignation, except upon the hypothesis of the proclamation having been issued by the Government. My noble Friend asked for information, and where was he to get it but from Her Majesty's Government? I also asked for information, and asked, as I thought, in very moderate terms, suggesting that it would be very interesting to the public and to this House if the noble Earl's agents in Italy would supply better information than he seemed to have received. How was I met? A noble Duke not now present (the Duke of Argyll) jumped up as though I were attacking the Government, and were asking a very impertinent question. He addressed me much as schoolboys are sometimes addressed—"If you ask no questions"—your Lordships know what usually follows; and he supported his position by immediately giving currency to a piece of false news, for he said that the proclamation was an invention, that it had probably never been written, and that he was assured by a particular friend of his that there was not a word of truth in it. That is the way in which I was answered, and for some minutes I really began to reflect whether I had any right to speak in this House at all. My Lords, I must say that I regret very much to be met in this spirit; and I am sure that the conduct of the Opposition during the whole of the present Session should lead the Government to refrain from so meeting us. I do not believe that in the whole history of England there has been a time when the Opposition showed greater leniency towards the Government, and less of obstruction or of antagonism. But, though we wish at this time to avoid anything like antagonism towards the Government, we cannot forego our right to express our opinions upon what is passing in one of the most interesting countries of Europe. We have a right to ask questions, and to expect answers made in a corresponding spirit of conciliation and of courtesy. The noble Earl has said, with justice, that the English Government is not

  1585
  to be condemned for any acts of cruelty which take place in Italy, whether sanctioned by the Piedmontese Government or not. In that I perfectly agree; but still Her Majesty's Government, from the moment of their first taking office, have identified themselves with the Italian Kingdom, giving to it all their moral support; and they went further (and I am not sure that here they acted wisely), for they approved the descent of Garibaldi upon Sicily, and afterwards his still more questionable expedition into Naples. Her Majesty's Government are therefore so far identified with what is taking place in Italy that they must, for the very consolidation and establishment of Italian liberty, be anxious that no deeds shall be committed there which shall bring shame and disgrace upon the Italian cause. That being so, surely it is not asking too much of the Government that they, speaking in this peaceful country, where they can judge with calmness and deliberation of what is passing far away, should interfere with their friendly advice, pointing out to the Piedmontese Government how dangerous it is to their cause and to their final success to suffer cruelties like those of Fantoni's proclamation, and not to check and prevent them with a high hand. I also deprecate the practice of accusing me, or my noble Friends behind me, of illiberal views because we give our opinions as to what is passing in Italy. I said just now, that although I perfectly agree with the noble Earl's policy of non-interference in Italy, I think he lost an opportunity for the good of Italy when he declined to agree to the French proposal to prevent Garibaldi from crossing into Naples. There is no question that for many years there was in Italy a desire for Italian freedom and Constitutional Governments; but Italian unity is an idea that arose long afterwards; and I cannot but think that it is a great mistake. By it has been sacrificed the reality of freedom in that country. It arose from a set of Piedmontese, who took up a map of Italy and wished to arrange it as you would a dinner-table. That was the way in which the idea first got abroad. It was taken up, and it has been acted on in the manner we have all seen. My opinion is, that by acting on it they have got the shadow, and postponed, for a long time at all events, the reality of that freedom which we should wish to see Italy enjoy. A Government might have been formed in the Northern States, which from their great similarity of
  1586
  tastes and interests, would have readily amalgamated; but I believe that between the Northern and the Southern States it is hardly possible that a complete fusion should exist. It is impossible to conceive a greater difference in temper, taste, and character—in every way—than that which exists between the Neapolitans and the Piedmontese. Whatever the noble Earl may say—whether or not he may call that civil war which divides the country between two parties—this he may depend on, that, according to the best sources of information, the Piedmontese are hated in Naples as much as ever the Austrians were by the Piedmontese themselves. The feeling of the Neapolitans with regard to a union with Piedmont is like that of the old Bretons in Brittany—Potiùs mori quam fœdari. That is my opinion—but I must say that I think this is an Italian, and not an English question; but after what has been stated in your Lordships' House, I cannot help asking the noble Earl whether he is not mistaken as to the state of Naples; and whether he is not incorrect in the flourishing account which he has given us as to the way in which persons prosecuted by the Government are treated in Naples? I have here a letter from a gentleman giving a most exact account of what is taking place in Naples. It differs very materially from that of the noble Earl; and as it relates to a subject of considerable importance, I will read it to your Lordships. I would not do so did I not know that the writer is one whose word may be relied on. It is as follows:—
  "I enclose you by a safe opportunity some few remarks on the present state of things here and in the provinces, mainly confining myself to what I have had come immediately under my own observation and could gather from thoroughly authentic sources. Having gone down there principally to see a friend who has been five months in prison in Santa Maria Apparente, I have had opportunities of seeing a good deal of the working of the system; and, after the letters of Mr. Edwin James and Mr. Gladstone, one naturally hoped their protégés would have profited by so many warnings and avoided copying the Bourbon prison cruelties we heard so much of. I do not believe any one has an idea of what goes on in the prisons with regard to the wretched Royalists, who are used like brutes. I heard a Piedmontese officer say myself, the other day, they gave, and should give, no quarter to Royalist prisoners even taken in fair fight, now the kingdom of Italy is declared! And they certainly act on this resolution whenever the opportunity occurs. The Murat faction are, I think, nearly a quarter of the population, and they are gaining strength, as you may imagine, from all these cruelties, as they would make the Sultan of Turkey a welcome ruler in comparison. Nothing is a worse feature of the revolution than the

  1587
  public sale and exposure of the most abominable prints, photographs, and books, expressly invented, I should say, to corrupt the youth of both sexes. No shop in London would escape the seizure of its Stock if such infamies as I see daily here were allowed. The atheist press, too, is doing a fine trade, and even the life of our Lord Jesus Christ is turned into a scandalous novel, under the title of The Carpenter of Nazareth. Libels of the most disgusting kind on the Royal Family, on the Pope, on the ministers of religion, and even the poor Sisters of Charity, swarm on every bookstall; and I scarcely could have believed the indecency of them if I had not gone to see them myself. The reaction is still very strong in the Forest districts, and many young men of good family have joined it, concealing their names in most cases. The Comte de Christen has been five months in prison on the merest suspicion; and when I saw him on Friday, after repeated refusals on the part of the authorities, it was the first visit he had been allowed to receive during that time, having been kept in solitary confinement and deprived of all communication from without by letter or otherwise. You may have frequently seen his name in connection with some of the most daring sorties that were made from Gaeta and the Abruzzi last winter; at Banco, among others, which he especially distinguished himself at by his gallant defence against an overwhelming force under Sonnaz; and this is a miserable revenge for his courage and loyalty. That his ability was thoroughly appreciated by his enemies is easily guessed by their having (after Banco) offered him a general's commission to pass into the Italian ranks; which he refused, and he is now lying in prison, and cannot get a trial, though it was promised months ago. A brief mention of this case would, I feel sure, be of essential service to him, if made in the House of Commons as there is nothing would have such an effect in Turin. The mere knowledge that the facts are mentioned is enough to influence it, and would at any rate serve to hasten his trial, which is what he is principally anxious for, as, there being no evidence against him, he would be sure of an acquittal. It would be a kindness to a very gallant and honourable soldier."
  It was because I was in possession of such facts as these that I thought it my duty to rise and state to the noble Earl opposite, and to the Government, what I have heard, and constantly heard, from the best possible authorities—persons whom I have no sort of scruple to name to the noble Earl in private, and whose statements he will at once admit must be credible. If the noble Earl does value, as I know he does, the success of the liberties of Italy; if he does value, as I am sure he does, the fame of this country, which has gone hand in hand with this revolution, I would ask him to separate England from deeds of this kind, and make it known to the world that she will not be in any way connected with atrocities of the character which we have reason to believe have been perpetrated in Southern Italy.
  LORD WODEHOUSEsaid, he was not surprised that the noble Earl who had just addressed their Lordships should he sensitive as to the policy of this country towards Italy. He willingly admitted the fairness with which the noble Earl had acted towards those who had charge of the foreign policy of this country since the noble Earl himself held the seals of the Foreign Office; and he certainly felt grateful for the noble Earl's forbearance towards himself personally during the time when it was his duty to answer in their Lordships' House questions on foreign affairs. But, on the other hand, he did not think the noble Earl had anything to complain of in the conduct of noble Lords now on the Treasury bench during the Administration of the late Government. The noble Earl often talked of the policy of non-intervention. As regarded actual interference, the policy of the late, and that of the present Government, had been the same in respect of Italy. The difference between the two policies was this—that the present Government had given a moral support to the Italian patriots, while such aid was not given to them by the Government of which the noble Earl had been Foreign Secretary. He did not think that the noble Earl had taken any steps against the Italian movement. He thought the noble Earl had been strictly impartial. He had read with attention the papers drawn up by the noble Earl, and he thought he had a right to claim that credit. But the Liberal side of the House, acting, as he thought more in accordance with the opinion of the people of this country, had given a moral support to the Italian patriots in their endeavour to secure independence. He thought that was the true distinction between the two policies. But there was an observation of the noble Earl (the Earl of Malmesbury) in which he entirely concurred, which was, that those questions which had been brought under discussion that evening were rather Italian than English questions; and his noble Friend, with a discretion which he should have expected from him, refrained from going into details such as those into which the noble Marquess had entered. He remembered that during a space of two years the noble Marquess had made a practice of coming down to that House with extracts from journals and correspondence that had fallen into his hands—properly fallen into his hands, no doubt. Those the noble Marquess mixed into a kind of olla podrida, and then called on the

  1589
  Government to give answers to the statements which they contained. Many of them, of course, could only be answered by the Government at Turin. The English Government did not feel called upon to defend all the acts of the Government of Turin. There was an evident animus against the Italian Government on the part of the noble Marquess. As far as the noble Marquess was concerned, and any one who adopted the language which he held, sympathy must be taken to exist with the reactionary party. But, as regarded other noble Lords opposite, there was this distinction:—During the last two Sessions they were extremely careful not to identify themselves with the noble Marquess in any of the questions which he had put to Her Majesty's Government relating to occurrences in Italy. The noble Earl, however, who had just sat down, although he might be disjoined from the opinions of the noble Marquess, had certainly given to-night a kind of countenance and support to the questions which he asked. At the same time the noble Earl must be entirely acquitted of sympathizing wish the noble Marquess in his desire that those Governments, so much regretted by the noble Marquess, should be restored. The noble Earl rightly represented the general feeling on both sides of the House in favour of free government in Italy, and wisely drew a distinction between the unity of Italy and the federation of Italy. Those who had read the papers presented to the House must see that Her Majesty's Government also had taken a fair and impartial line; they had not absolutely embraced the proposition of an united Italy, but they had looked fairly at facts as they arose. The noble Earl in the observation which he made about the selection of a central point in the map of the Peninsula forgot that there were historical associations connected with the city of Rome, which naturally led Italians, apart from its central position, to desire that it should become the capital of the new kingdom of Italy. He had risen merely for the purpose of pointing out what seemed to him the great difference existing between the policy pursued by the noble Earl and Her Majesty's present Government; at the same time he freely acknowledged that the noble Earl was entitled to the credit which he claimed for impartiality.
  THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDEsaid he had no wish to be considered a defender of all the acts of the Italian Govern-
  1590
  ment, but thought it right to state that the noble Marquess had been led into error with regard to the circumstances under which Colonel Anviti was assassinated. He could state a few facts for which he could vouch, which would exculpate the Italian authorities from any complicity in his murder. He happened to be on the spot a few days after the occurrence, and learnt the facts from various quarters, both official and non-official. It was alleged that the authorities were aware of the Colonel's projected journey to Parma, and that they had lodged him in gaol in order that he might be torn out by the mob. There was a break in the railroad at a few miles distance from Parma, and Colonel Anviti, who, he believed, had not previously been recognised by anybody, was obliged to get out of the carriage, and walk along the road with the rest of the passengers. He was then noticed by persons familiar with his appearance, and on his arrival at the station the rumour spread like wildfire. He was not actually seized at the station, but at. a short distance from it, before he could reach the town. The arrest did not take place by authority; it was the mob who seized him, and the soldiers of the picket stationed there for the purpose of protecting the Custom-house officers, interfered to save him. They succeeded in getting him into the guard-house, and kept him there for a short time; but before any of the municipal authorities could reach the spot the guard-house was forced by the mob, and Colonel Anviti was assassinated, under the circumstances with which their Lordships were acquainted. He believed some of the soldiers were wounded in the affray, and that there was no commissioned officer present; he knew that strict official inquiry was made, and that the authorities in the strongest manner deplored the assassination. He would ask the noble Marquess did not the fact that the people behaved like savages, and committed all sorts of atrocities, show the state of exasperation to which they were driven against the Government of which Colonel Anviti had been so long an instrument? He gave entire credit to the assertion of the noble Earl opposite that he was a sincere friend of Italian freedom and Constitutional Government; but with his wishes in that direction was mixed up a desire to maintain the Treaties of 1815.
  THE EARL OF MALMESBURY: And to establish Constitutional Government, and refer the whole question to a European Congress.
  THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDEsaid, that the Treaties of 1815 were inseparably mixed up with the question of Austrian influence in Italy; and as the Austrians had over and over again shown their determination not to allow Constitutional Government in Italy, it was difficult to Bee how a desire for Italian freedom could be reconciled in practice with strict adherence to the Treaties of 1815.
  THE MARQUESS OF NORMANBYsaid, he was most unwilling, after having already occupied so much of their time, to detain them even for a moment; but although there was not much on which he thought it necessary to make any reply at such an inconvenient hour, yet he could not pass over in silence what his noble Friend (the Marquess of Clanricarde) had just said as to the murder of Colonel Anviti. He had no intention to treat the details just given as a mere traveller's tale, since they were perfectly consistent with the confession of complicity in that crime made by the writer of the pamphlet to which he had already alluded. The tale was taken up by Curletti at the point where it was left by the noble Marquess's informant. To justify what he had already stated, he had better read the account in a few lines, as published in this pamphlet three months ago, which had never been contradicted—
  "I was busy in my cabinet, when Farini rushed in, crying, 'Make haste, you must go at once to Parma. Colonel Anviti has been arrested there at the railway station. Be was the Bourbon executioner.'
  "These were his very expressions, not a word of this conversation has escaped my memory. 'What must I do?' I replied; 'bring him to you?' 'No, not so; I should not know what to do with so dangerous a fellow. But,' after an ominous pause, 'we could not touch him without raising an uproar; the populace must settle this affair. You understand me.' I went. It is well known what happened.
  "But many details have escaped public notice. As a consequence of my sad and deplorable mission, I was recompensed with the cross of St. Maurice and St. Lazarus. The governor of the prison, Galetti, the same who, by command, had let his prisoner be taken from his custody, was advanced from the governorship of the prison to the direction of the Post Office. Many will ask how it happened that a man whom some police officers could easily take from the railway terminus to the prison, could be torn off from this place by rioters; that such a man could be murdered, dragged during several hours along the streets, and all that in presence of a watch of its Carabineers, intrusted with the defence of the prison, and in a town which had then a garrison of about six thousand men. I have but to reply this: I obeyed my orders, and the immediate tools of this dreadful assassination were easily found. Thus Davidi, the man who, after having dragged the bloody
  1592
  corpse of Colonel Anviti along the streets of Parma, decapitated it, to set the head as a trophy upon the pyramid of the Government, was the very same day appointed governor of the prison of Parma. Two months ago he was still in this office."
  He really hardly knew whether his noble Friend (Earl Russell), by his explanation of the Italian gentleman's account of the proclamation, meant to uphold or disclaim the statement given to the House by his colleague, the Lord Privy Seal. Certainly the allusion now for the first time made to another proclamation at some other time, was completely at variance with the interpretation which every one had hitherto given to the apparently obvious meaning of the Duke's words.
  One word, as to the feelings which his noble Friend supposed to actuate him in the course he had uniformly taken on the Italian affairs. Of all the gratuitous suppositions in which he had indulged, he thought that to any one who had known him so long and under so many different circumstances, the imputation of indifference to religious liberty was the most unjust and unfounded when applied to central Italy, as he (Earl Russell) well knew, from his residence on the spot at the time, that he had done more than any other individual to secure from religious persecution the Tuscan Protestants, and had, in consequence, received a deputation from them conveying their thanks. Though the noble Earl did not give him much encouragement as to the extent of information he was likely to obtain from the papers for which he had asked, he would persevere in his Motion; as thereby they would at least obtain practical proof how little knowledge of what was going on his noble Friend derived from his diplomatic agents.
  Motion agreed to.
  House adjourned at half-past Seven o'clock, till To-morrow, a quarter before Five o'clock.