Lords Sitting of 21 February 1871

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Provisional Order Bills (Committees)* (25).
Second Reading — Princess Louise's Annuity* (20); Ecclesiastical Dilapidations (2); Juries Act (1870) Amendment (21).
Committee—West African Settlements* (1).

RIVATE BILLS.
Ordered, That this House will not receive any petition for a Private Bill after Monday the 20 th of March next, unless such Private Bill shall have been approved by the Court of Chancery; nor any petition for a Private Bill approved by the Court of Chancery after Monday the 8th of May next:
Ordered, That this House will not receive any report from the judges upon petitions presented to this House for Private Bills after Monday the 8th of May next:
Ordered, That the said Orders be printed and published, and affixed on the doors of this House and Westminster Hall. (No. 23.)

ECCLESIASTICAL DILAPIDATIONS BILL.
(The Lord Archbishop of York.)
ECCLESIASTICAL DILAPIDATIONS BILL.

  (NO. 2.) SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  THE ARCHBISHOP OF YORKsaid, he would not have troubled the House with any observations on this Bill, but for some remarks made by a noble and learned Lord (Lord Romilly) last night, calculated to produce an impression which it was very desirable to remove. The noble and learned Lord complained of the haste with which this measure and two other Bills were hurried through the House last Session, and apprehended great peril to the Church and to the Episcopal element in the House from their being so hastily dealt with. He (the Archbishop of York), however, wished to remark that the subject had been long under public attention. As long ago as 1862, a Bill on this subject was introduced into their Lordships' House at the instance of the Convocation of Canterbury, and was referred to a Select Committee, composed of eminent Members of that House, including Lord St. Leonards. On review of the labours of the Session, the Committee thought it was too late then to proceed with the Bill, and they recommended that it should be printed with a view to
  558
  excite the attention of those concerned, in the hope of legislation in the following year. Their able Report, however, for reasons unknown to him, remained on the shelves of the Library till 1868, when he (the Archbishop of York) introduced, late in the Session, a Bill prepared by a Committee of Convocation, substantially the same as the present. In 1869, he re-introduced it; but, after passing through the stage of Committee, it was withdrawn; and last year he brought it in precisely the same as the present, which passed through all its stages in their Lordships' House, was sent down to the Commons, was there read the second time on the 19th July, but was withdrawn on the 25th on account of the lateness of the Session. He was therefore surprised to hear it said this matter had been dealt with hastily and inconsiderately. This was not a Bishop's Bill. Prepared by the Lower Houses of Convocation of both Provinces, the Bill emanated from the clergy themselves, and was not a measure which the Bishops sought to impose on them. It introduced, moreover, no novelty in point of law, for the theory at present was, that every clergyman dwelling in a house which was his freehold was bound to leave it to his successor in as good a condition as that in which he received it. This principle it was not proposed to change—the mode of assessing the waste which had occurred between one incumbency and another would be retained; but it would be made more equal, certain, and complete. The chief object which this Bill sought to secure was to obtain as surveyors men eminent in their profession, acting on settled rules, and deciding in an uniform manner. The Select Committee had proposed that they should be appointed by the Bishops; but this was open to objection, and the clergy, being most deeply concerned in the matter, might reasonably claim a voice in it. Election by the whole body of the clergy would lead to canvassing and agitation, and it was thought best to entrust the election to the archdeacons and rural deans, subject to the approval of the Bishop, who, on complaint, would have power to remove the surveyor. If any plan, however, could be suggested more likely to secure the confidence of the clergy, he was not prepared to say that it would not be accepted. The surveyor would act whenever

  559
  a benefice was sequestrated—for the person who took the profits of the living out of the hands of the clergyman was clearly bound to keep the parsonage in repair — and whenever a benefice was vacant, at which time nobody's rights could be said to be infringed by his having the house put in sufficient repair. Clause 12—which he admitted was, to some extent, an alteration of the existing law, and would probably, therefore, evoke most objection—gave the Bishop no right to interfere in the first instance, but enabled him, on the requisition in writing of the archdeacon, rural dean, or patron, to order a survey. It was surely but right that the patron should be able to interpose if a waste of the freehold was going on, and the archdeacons were entitled to see that the parsonage, as well as the church, was kept in repair. The fees and the expenses of repairs could be borrowed by the clergyman from Queen Anne's Bounty; and any clergyman calling for a survey, and obtaining a certificate, would be free for five years from any liability for dilapidations, to which, latter provision great value was attached by the clergy. He should be the last man to promote the measure if it threw any fresh burdens on the parochial clergy; but they themselves, or at least the more prudent among them, were anxious for it, and since 1862 there had hardly been a single Petition against its principle.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Lord Archbishop of York.)
  LORD ROMILLYsaid, he did not intend, after what occurred last night, to move the rejection of the Bill, though he thought it was insufficiently considered last year, and was a measure as objectionable as that discussed yesterday. The Episcopal Bench were departing from their original functions—those relating to doctrine and discipline—by meddling with the financial arrangements of the parochial clergy. They had nothing to do with them. Dilapidations were a matter resting between the incoming and outgoing incumbent; and though they were occasionally irrecoverable, through the insolvent position of the latter, such cases were rare, and it was best to leave the question to the parties concerned. He was of opinion that the same evils might arise in this case as he thought would
  560
  arise in the case of the Benefices Resignation Bill, and even more strongly; the evil was to place the parochial clergy under the control of the Bishop. A surveyor was to be sent every five years to examine the state of the parish. Under the Bill, the surveyor, though not appointed by the Bishop directly, was appointed at a meeting over which he might preside if he thought proper, or failing him, the archdeacon; and the sanction of the Bishop must be obtained. Now surveyors, as his judicial experience had shown him, were a very expensive class of men. The whole expense of their employment would fall upon the clergyman. It would be necessary to have an inspection by the surveyor from time to time in order to ascertain what repairs were required; the incumbent might then carry them out himself if he pleased; but then a second survey would be required to certify that the repairs had been properly carried out. The whole of this must be borne by the incumbent, and in the aggregate a very heavy burden would be thrown on the parochial clergy. Then not only might the archdeacon complain to the Bishop, but the latter might, under Clause 26, order an inspection of any parsonage of his own accord. [The Archbishop of YORK explained that that clause applied only to episcopal residences.] In that case, his objection, in that respect, fell to the ground; but he observed, that if the repairs thought necessary were resisted by the incumbent, the matter was to be determined as in the nature of a lawsuit by the Bishop, and the expense would certainly be serious. There was, moreover, he thought, a technical objection to the Bill. The Bill would tax a large body of persons, and he did not remember any measure the whole scope of which was the raising of money for certain purposes from a particular class having originated in that House. What view the House of Commons would take of it he did not know, and if their privileges were guarded by the money clauses being struck out when it was sent down to them the very essence of the Bill would disappear.
  THE BISHOP OF GLOUCESTER AND BRISTOLsaid, the noble and learned Lord seemed to have derived his views of the Bill from a pamphlet which had probably reached many of their Lordships, for his noble and learned Friend had used almost in the same order the

  561
  arguments of the ingenious writer. The author's name had been communicated to him, and he was happy to recognize in him a Gloucestershire incumbent and a very intelligent and sensible man; but he did not believe his arguments would meet with general acceptance among his brother clergymen. It was apparently feared that the Bishops wanted to violate the proper independence of the parochial clergy; but he joined in his most rev. Friend's disclaimer of any desire to interfere with their privacy or welfare, and he did not believe for one moment that in any diocese any sinister design was imputed to the Bill by any of those for whose benefit it was framed. It might, indeed, be objected that though it raised the difficult question as to what dilapidations were, it did not attempt to answer it; but though it confessedly left this difficulty as it found it, the Bill notwithstanding removed the real and practical difficulties connected with the question, by providing an uniform course of proceeding and a consistent treatment of all cases that came under its purview. It was based on the recommendations of the clergy themselves, as expressed in the Convocation of both Provinces, and could hardly be supposed as threatening any injustice to to those whom the noble and learned Lord seemed so desirous to protect. The writer of the pamphlet referred to ruri-decanal meetings and to Convocation as packed assemblies, for which he had neither respect nor reverence, and he emphatically stated that he preferred the opinion of laymen. While joining in the writer's respect for the opinion of laymen, he supported the Bill, as one likely to be beneficial to the clergy and to the Church at large.
  On Question? agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly.

JURIES ACT (1870) AMENDMENT BILL.
(The Lord Chancellor.)
JURIES ACT (1870) AMENDMENT BILL.

  (NO. 21.) SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR, in moving the second reading of this Bill, explained that its object was to repeal the 22nd section of an Act of last Session, which directed that special jurors should be allowed 21 s. and common jurors 10 s.
  562
  a day for their attendance, to be paid by the parties, and a deposit to be made by them, as mght be determined by the rules of Court. This had proved a serious burden to the suitor, rendering it difficult for persons in humble circumstances to obtain justice without first of all paying a heavy fine; for the Judges had found it necessary to require 12 guineas to be deposited on notice of trial being given, and in some cases as much as £25. The deposit in common jury cases, though smaller, was a serious burden. Nor was this the worst of the matter; for this sum had to be deposited whether the case came on for trial or not; and if the cause was not tried, it was found there were no means of refunding the money, so that a fine had been paid from which the parties had derived no advantage. It was therefore thought desirable to repeal the section, and to avoid any ambiguity he should propose in Committee a proviso that payments made anterior to the passing of the Act should not be interfered with.
  EARL GREYsaid, that this was an illustration of that imperfect system of legislation to which he had more than once called attention, and which was daily becoming a more crying evil. That Bills which had passed both Houses should require amendment as soon as Parliament re-assembled was not creditable to either House, and proved the necessity of subjecting measures before they became law to some closer scrutiny than at present. Some machinery ought to be devised by which the practical working of legislation might be more satisfactorily secured.
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday next.

OCCUPATION OF ROME BY THE SOVEREIGN PONTIFF.

  ADDRESS FOR A PAPER.
  LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNErose, according to Notice, to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs for an explanation with regard to a letter from the right hon. W. E. Gladstone, dated Downing Street, 30th November 1870, addressed to F. Dease, Esq., M.P., in reference to the Sovereign Pontiff; also to inquire as to the accuracy of certain despatches said to be addressed by

  563
  the noble Earl and the late Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs to Foreign Governments on the same subject; also a despatch addressed by the Secretary of State for the Colonies, dated 16th January 1871, to the Governor of Gibraltar on the same subject; and to move for copies of these documents. The noble Lord said that the absorbing topics of the war abroad and our defences at home had diverted the public interest from all other subjects; but, were this subject passed over, it would be said that the remarkable utterances of the Premier touching the Pope, and the conduct of Her Majesty's Government regarding Italy, had attracted no attention. As he knew that this was far from being the case, and that it was only owing to very clever political manœuvring that the public voice on the matter had been stifled, he felt it his duty—though he feared the subject was not very attractive to their Lordships—to bring it under their notice, especially as the public voice had only been hushed pending an explanation, promised by the right hon. Gentleman at the meeting of Parliament, but which had not yet been given. Independently of the special difficulties of bringing forward the question on the present occasion, arising from the pre-occupation of the public mind, he had to encounter the ordinary difficulties attaching to the case. Neither of the great parties in Parliament desired to touch it, because, they said, it involved a religious discussion; the real fact being that neither would risk offending the Irish Members, who held the key of the situation. Party interests, in fact, were supreme. Believing this to be the great misfortune of the day, he must proceed regardless of it; but he would specially guard himself from wishing, directly or indirectly, to enter on any religious discussion. Claiming freedom for his own views, he wished every other man to enjoy the same freedom, save when, under the name of religion, he endeavoured to establish an "imperium in imperio." The first protest he ever made was against this system, and his object was now to renew it. The greater part of his life had been spent among a Roman Catholic people; but religion had never interfered between them, except when interested persons had roused religious animosity in order to gain political power. A more
  564
  amiable and excellent people than his countrymen in the West did not live on the face of the earth till, by the measures of Her Majesty's Government in the last two Sessions, the premium on disaffection and disturbance became too high to be resisted. He would now call their Lordships' attention to three paragraphs in the Premier's letter to Mr. Dease. They ran thus—
  "In reply, I have to state that Her Majesty's Government have not during the various changes which have marked the reign of the present Pope interfered, nor have they now proposed to interfere, with the civil government of the city of Rome or the surrounding country. But Her Majesty's Government consider all that relates to the adequate support of the dignity of the Pope and to his personal freedom and independence in the discharge of his spiritual functions to be legitimate matter for their notice. Indeed, without waiting for the occurrence of an actual necessity, they have, during the uncertainties of the last few months, taken upon themselves to make provision which would tend to afford any necessary protection to the person of the Sovereign Pontiff."
  The noble Earl the Secretary for the Colonies (Earl Granville) would probably acknowledge, without his troubling their Lordships by quotations, that despatches to the Governors of Gibraltar and, he believed, Malta, in reply to addresses from Roman Catholics in those islands, had been forwarded nearly identical in terms with this letter—which proved that Mr. Gladstone's letter conveyed the deliberate policy intended to be pursued by the Government, and was not one of those impulsive statements on the part of the Premier which often caused his Colleagues so much inconvenience. In connection with the declaration that the Government had not interfered, and would not interfere, in the civil government of Rome, he must call attention to a letter published in The Times, and dated Florence, December 21, 1870, purporting to contain a summary of despatches published in the Italian Green Book. This letter remarked—
  "Another despatch of Senor Cadorna, dated September 27, shows how well the chief of the English Foreign Office understood the situation of affairs in Italy, and how warmly he recommended to the Italian Government to leave alone that unfortunate business of the 'Roma capitale.' The important question being solved by the taking of Rome, though his advice with regard to the transfer of the capital is not accepted, he tries to persuade the Pope not to leave Rome. Mr. Otway, in a conversation he had with Senor Cadorna on the same day, seems to have insisted once more upon the necessity of postponing the transfer, and points out the difficulties the question produces in Ireland."

  565
  The correspondent went on to state that the despatches from all the other great Powers showed that they did not wish to interfere with Italy on the subject, and that she was quite free to act as she thought fit. Now, it seemed to him impossible for one Government to have shown more impertinent interference in the affairs of another country than for our Government to press the Italian Government not to allow the people of Italy to realize their long cherished desire of making Rome the seat of their Government, because it was displeasing to the Irish. It was certainly astonishing to what lengths party influences would lead experienced statesmen. Though not reported in the Green Book, he (Lord Oranmore and Browne) doubted not that Senor Cadorna informed the English Government that the Italians, reciprocating the kind interest taken by the Irish in their affairs, strongly advised the Government to transfer the seat of government from London to Dublin—a suggestion which the Irish people would like to see carried out. The next two paragraphs said that Her Majesty's Government, without waiting for an actual necessity, had taken upon themselves to afford any necessary protection to the Sovereign Pontiff. It was commonly stated that a ship of war had been waiting at Civita Vecchia to take the Pope to Malta, or perhaps to Ireland. He hoped His Holiness would choose the latter, for, perchance, as St. Patrick drove out reptiles, so Pius IX. might drive out assassins; but it seemed curious that a country, of which at least four-fifths were Protestants, should be so assiduous in its care of the Pope, when Austria, Spain, Portugal, and Belgium, all Roman Catholic countries, stood by quite indifferent. It showed, he feared, that party interests acted more powerfully than religious influences; or was it that Roman Catholic countries had enough Churchmen already, without undertaking to provide an asylum for their Infallible Head? He had not been surprised to read that Archbishop Manning felt hurt at such conduct. Perhaps the Government would tell their Lordships and the public what palace they had prepared, and what provision it was proposed to make "for the adequate support of the dignity" of His Holiness, for assuredly it would be a strange hospitality
  566
  that landed him penniless on the burning rock of Malta or on the damp shores of Ireland. It was still more important to know what provision the Government had made or were making to secure his "independence in the discharge of his spiritual functions," for this was a difficult undertaking. Englishmen were more ready to give their money than to surrender their liberties, yet he feared that independence in the discharge of the Pope's spiritual functions would involve a slight sacrifice of our national liberty. It was no easy matter to define what such independence meant; but he would endeavour to afford an explanation from well-authenticated documents emanating from His Holiness. Liberty of worship, liberty of the Press, liberty of speech, aye, and of conscience must be all repressed. God had conferred on the Pope not only to direct by persuasion but by force those who turned aside; by a canon of the Church the Pope was bound to put such persons to death; no civil law was binding if it differed from the law of the Church. Such were the laws under which the Romans had suffered for centuries. Such were a few of the many blessings involved in that spiritual independence of His Holiness which the Government had undertaken to protect. It did not require any very narrow-minded bigotry to conclude that it was hardly consistent with the Liberal institutions of this country for the Government to guarantee the spiritual independence of the Pope. It must be remembered, too, that the language of the meetings that occurred at the time the letter was written was anything but temperate. The head of the Roman Catholic Church in this country, supported by some members of their Lordships' House, at a meeting at St. James's Hall, stated—
  "It was a figment and an illusion to distinguish between politics and religion. Polities were a part of morals; morals were part of religion; the two were indissoluble."
  This statement coincided entirely with the Premier's policy. It was commonly stated that the Ultramontane system was effete; yet we saw it actively influencing every important act of the Legislature, for the great measures of the last two Sessions were certainly framed far more to secure power and income to the Roman Catholic clergy than to

  567
  benefit the people of Ireland. That most exceptional and novel clause in the English Education Bill, giving the cumulative vote, was introduced, moreover, solely to give Roman Catholics an undue influence in the education of this country. That it was undue was best shown by the fact that no Roman Catholics were chosen under the Parliamentary franchise. It was the carrying out of the system recommended some years back by M. de Montalembert to the Roman Catholics—namely, that by taking advantage of party divisions they could gain an undue influence in the State. He would next refer to a very short letter from Mr. Kinnaird to Mr. Gladstone, and a still shorter letter from Mr. Gladstone himself. The first letter was dated January 6—more than a month after the Premier's letter to Mr. Dease, and therefore could not have been written without full time for "accurately understanding the expressions" in Mr. Gladstone's letter. After stating that there was every wish that due consideration should be shown for the religious feelings of the Roman Catholic subjects of Her Majesty, and that every courteous consideration should be shown to the Pope if in distress, Mr. Kinnaird, remarking on the Premier's letter, said it became all British subjects to inquire whether the Papal jurisdiction, the essence of all spiritual tyranny, the deadly foe of all religious and political freedom, was to be made the object of the watchful and fostering care of Her Majesty's Government? and added that such a policy would be the natural and necessary conclusion to be drawn from Mr. Gladstone's expressions. The Premier, by his silence, accepted this as the policy which the Government intended to pursue; but Mr. Kinnaird, getting no reply to his letter for a fortnight, and supposing that the right hon. Gentleman, fearing that the policy thus imputed to his Government might not be acceptable to his constituents, was struggling between his honest convictions and his political interests, took the somewhat peculiar course of replying to his own letter. Accordingly on the 19th January he wrote a reply, in which he interpreted the Premier's expressions as in no wise intended to pledge the Government to do anything to mix itself up in any way with the Pope's spiritual power. The hand was the hand of Esau, but the
  568
  voice was surely that of Jacob. This was telling the Roman Catholic voters the Government were not "pledged" to interfere for the Pope, but that they were free to do so, and telling the Presbyterian—"We are not likely to have anything to say to the Pope"—a very convenient position, variable as the political situation might require. The correspondence closed with a note from the Premier to Mr. Kinnaird, dated the 19th of January, short, characteristic, and grateful, saying—
  "You have accurately understood those expressions in my letter to Mr. Dease to which you refer. With many thanks," &c.
  The Premier did not say whether it was in the letter of the 6th or the letter of the 19th that Mr. Kinnaird had accurately understood him. Another important fact proved that the Government intended to carry out the policy indicated in the letter to Mr. Dease. In the Speech from the Throne an event of such world-wide interest as the annexation of Rome was passed over in silence. The Italian antecedents of the Premier made this the more remarkable. The disappointment of the Italians at seeing that the liberal and generous sympathies of so distinguished a statesman must yield and be smothered to meet the exigencies of party would not give them or the other peoples of Europe a high estimate of the working of our constitutional Government. It was also another instance of the wishes of the large majority of the inhabitants of these islands being subordinated to those of the small minority; for at most the Roman Catholics of Great Britain and Ireland did not exceed one-fifth of the population, the vast majority of the remainder entirely sympathizing with the overthrow of the Papal Government and the completion of Italian nationality. Our home and foreign policy was thus regulated principally by the Irish Members returned by the Roman Catholic hierarchy, who held the balance between the two great parties in the State—a result both unfortunate and contrary to the intention of our Constitution. When the evils arising there from were seen by the British people, he believed that if Parliament did not find the remedy they would. He would ask his Roman Catholic fellow-countrymen to remember that the occupation of Rome was only a part of a great movement which had been, successfully

  569
  carried out by their co-religionists all through Europe—namely, an assertion that while they adhered to their religious faith they would also be freemen, and would not live under an absolute Government, whether carried on by laymen or ecclesiastics. It was principally owing to Roman Catholics abroad having shown this determination that the British people had given up all jealousy as to Roman Catholics in Great Britain having the fullest political privileges; but, if Englishmen saw that the enlightened Roman Catholics united with the ignorant in the endeavour to establish that very Ultramontane system which their co-religionists had thrown off all through Europe, they would be justly regarded not only as enemies to all civil and religious liberty, but as refusing to live on terms of equality and goodwill with the rest of Her Majesty's subjects. With every feeling of goodwill to his Roman Catholic fellow-countrymen, he would say—"Accept equality; by attempting to gain superiority you will create a revulsion of feeling which will be as much to be regretted as it will be disastrous to your own cause." Apologizing for having so long occupied their Lordships' time, and thanking them for their kind indulgence, he had now to ask the noble Earl (Earl Granville) for an explanation of Mr. Gladstone's letter to Mr. Dease, and for the production of the despatches issued from the Foreign and Colonial Offices to which he had referred.
  Moved, "That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that Her Majesty will be pleased to direct that there be laid before the House, Copy of a Despatch addressed by the Secretary of State for the Colonies, dated 16th January 1871, to the Governor of Gibraltar, on the subject of the occupation of Rome by the Sovereign Pontiff."—(The Lord Oranmore and Browne.)
  EARL GRANVILLE: My Lords, I do not think the noble Lord has taken a very convenient mode of bringing this question forward. Mr. Gladstone's letter, although an important letter, is not a Parliamentary document: moreover, as your Lordships are probably aware, Mr. Gladstone will be questioned respecting that letter in the House of Commons, and he will, I have no doubt, be able to give an answer satisfactory to all fair and reasonable men. I think, too, the mode pursued by the noble Lord is the less convenient, inasmuch as my
  570
  noble Friend the Secretary for the Colonies (the Earl of Kimberley) has no objection to the production of the despatches relating to the subject, and when those despatches are before your Lordships they will form fit subjects of criticism. For myself, as long as I unworthily hold the Office of Foreign Secretary, I shall consider any subject—whether religious, commercial, or political—worthy the notice of Her Majesty's Government, if it be a subject of legitimate interest to any considerable number of the Queen's subjects. With respect to the second part of the noble Lord's Notice, I believe your Lordships will agree with me that nothing could well be more vague, and less calculated to afford a clue to what the noble Lord was about to say; for the noble Lord asks for "certain despatches," without specifying the date, or stating by whom or to whom they were written: and then he asks whether they are accurate or not. My hon. Friend Mr. Otway, though up to the time of his retirement from Office he took a great interest in Foreign Affairs, would certainly never imagine it to be his duty to address despatches to foreign Governments on any occasion whatever. It turns out, however, that what the noble Lord referred to related to a despatch of the Italian Minister of Foreign Affairs, published in the Green Book of that country. These Papers have been presented to your Lordships, and are being printed, and in the course of this week they will be in your Lordships' hands. The following is the correspondence upon the subject:—
  "No. 4. Foreign Office, Jan. 3, 1871.
  "Sir,—I have received your despatch, No. 278, of the 19th ultimo, enclosing a copy of the Italian Green Book; and I have read the despatch of the Chevalier Cadorna to M. Visconti-Venosta of the 27th of September, 1870, which is published at page 50 in this collection of documents. In that despatch the Italian Minister reports some casual remarks on the question of the transfer of the Italian capital to Rome, which fell from myself and from Mr. Otway on the occasion of two conversations which he had respectively with us. I took occasion yesterday to inform the Chevalier Cadorna that he had attached a greater importance to these observations than had been intended by me or by Mr. Otway. I remember the conversation perfectly which I had the honour of holding with the Chevalier Cadorna, in which I asked him whether he believed the transfer of the capital to Rome would take place, and added that I had been convinced by the arguments of Massimo d'Azeglio, in a pamphlet published a few years ago, that it would be more prudent to continue the seat of government at Florence. I

  571
  made no allusion to Ireland, or to the effects which the removal of the capital might have upon public opinion in that country, and neither Mr. Otway nor I gave any official opinion on the matter. G.
  "To Sir Augustus Paget."
  "No. 25. Florence, Jan. 18,1871.
  "My Lord,—I have read to the Chevalier Visconti-Venosta your Lordship's despatch No. 4 of the 3rd inst., in reference to a despatch of Chevalier Cadorna, published in the Italian Green Book, reporting a conversation with your Lordship and Mr. Otway, in which some reference was made to the transfer of the Italian capital to Rome, and when I had concluded, his Excellency said that he had never considered your Lordship's remarks upon this subject as having an official or a formal character, but had understood them as having been uttered in the course of confidential conversation in the sense which you now attribute to them. If he had given the despatch a place among the diplomatic documents laid before the Italian Parliament, it was because he had thought it desirable that it should be seen that even in the mind of a statesman of recognized friendly sentiments towards Italy some doubts existed as to the expediency of the removal of the seat of government from where it was now established to Rome. Monsieur Visconti-Venosta added that the Chevalier Cadorna had informed him of the observations which your Lordship had recently made to him upon his report of the 27th of September. I have the honour to be, with the highest respect, my Lord, your Lordship's most obedient humble servant, A. PAGET.
  "The Earl Granville, K.G., &c."
  With regard to the third part of the Question, I have only to add that my noble Friend the Secretary for the Colonies will immediately produce the despatches on the question.
  THE EARL OF DENBIGHsaid, he rose to enter his protest against the manner in which the noble Lord (Lord Oranmore and Browne) had brought this question forward. He had commenced his speech by protesting that he wished to avoid the question of religious differences, and yet, notwithstanding this disclaimer, the whole of his arguments were based upon these religious differences. The occupation of Rome was no question as to whether the Roman Catholic or the Protestant religion was the right one, but one which depended on international law and justice, and involved the social rights of millions of her Majesty's subjects. That this was the right view, and as the noble Lord appeared to think that the opinion expressed by Mr. Gladstone and by the Secretary for the Colonies was very unusual, he (the Earl of Denbigh) would quote the opinion of Lord Ellenborough, as expressed on the 12th of June, 1849.
  572
  On that occasion Lord Ellenborough said—
  "It was quite true that England was not a Catholic State, and might not, therefore, feel that personal interest in the position of the Pope which was felt by Catholic Powers; but we had 8,000,000 of Roman Catholic fellow-subjects, and it was as much an object of interest to us as it could be to any one of the Catholic Powers of Europe that the Pope should be in a position of independence; that he should not be so situated as to be dependent upon the bounty or upon the power of any one, or of any combination of the Powers of Europe."—[3 Hansard, cvi. 10.]
  That was a statesmanlike view of the subject; and it was shared by Lord Brougham, who, speaking on the 20th of July, said—
  "My opinion is that it will not do to say that the Pope is all very well as a spiritual Prince, but we ought not to restore his temporal Power. That is a shortsighted, and I think a somewhat superficial view of the case. I do not believe it possible that the Pope could exercise beneficially his spiritual functions if he had no temporal power. For what would be the consequence? He would be stripped of all his authority. We are not now in the eighth century, when the Pope contrived to exist without much secular authority, or when, as Bishop of Rome, he exercised very extensive spiritual power without corresponding temporal power. The progress of the one, however, went along with that of the other. … His temporal force increased his spiritual authority, because it made him more independent. Stripped of that secular dominion he would become the slave now of one Power, then of another. … His temporal power is an European question, not a local or religious one, and the Pope's authority should be maintained for the sake of the peace and the interest of Europe."—[3 Hansard, cvii. 627.]
  Those extracts were sufficient to show that the great statesmen who uttered them had taken a different view of the subject from that adopted by the noble Lord. The noble Lord had ventured to point out what he believed to be the great dangers in the opinion expressed by the Archbishop of Westminster—that politics and morals could not be separated. He (the Earl of Denbigh) believed that he could explain the meaning of the Archbishop, as he himself shared the same view of the true meaning of politics. Politics were only the social and moral law of individuals applied to communities; and if the noble Lord would accept that definition, he believed he would not see in the statement of the Archbishop the dangers which he now anticipated.
  Motion agreed to.

FRANCE AND GERMANY—THE SIEGE OF PARIS—ABSENCE OF THE ENGLISH CONSUL.—QUESTION.
THE EARL OF MALMESBURY: My Lords, I wish to ask my noble Friend the Secretary for Foreign Affairs a Question upon a subject that has excited a great deal of comment not only in the Press, but in private circles in this country, and which has elicited, I am afraid, some very unfavourable expressions, both in England and abroad, as to the Department of which my noble Friend is the head, and has led to unpleasant reflections upon our national character. The Question I wish to ask him is this—Why the English Consul was absent from his post at Paris during the greatest part of the siege; and if, for a considerable period, the English population were not left there without any British official protection? That Question has been asked in "another place," and the reply returned by my noble Friend's subordinate (Viscount Enfield) was an eminently unsatisfactory one. He said that Lord Lyons was intrusted with discretionary powers, and that he told the Consul to leave Paris, but not to quit France, and to remain within reach. What he meant by remaining within reach when Paris was closely beleaguered I do not understand; as a matter of fact he held no communication with Paris during the siege. He also said that Lord Lyons warned his countrymen of the risk and danger that they incurred by remaining. Mr. Wodehouse remained for a time and then left also. But before I proceed with the case of the Consul, I wish to state openly, as Lord Lyons has been attacked by a right hon. Friend of mine (Sir Robert Peel) in "another place" for having quitted Paris and going to Tours with the French Government, my opinion that he could not have done otherwise, and that he would have acted wrongly if he had remained. His post was one requiring great freedom of action, and it would have been impossible for him to have fulfilled his duties towards his own country if he had remained shut up in Paris during a close siege. Recollect, however, that during all the unparalleled misery of this great siege, lasting four and a half months—for it began in the middle of September and did not close till the end of January—there were no
574
less than 2,000 British subjects starving in Paris; and if ever British subjects required the consolations and assistance of their Government, it was under such awful circumstances. And yet the man whose peculiar duty it was to remain in Paris in the absence of the Ambassador—I express the opinion formed from my own experience at the Foreign Office—and to look after our countrymen, had, as stated by Lord Enfield in "another place," permission to leave Paris during that time. Other persons attached to the Embassy were also allowed to leave; so that no one remained except Mr. Wodehouse, whose business was to take care of the archives of the Embassy. The siege went on, and the miseries increased. I do not wish to harrow the feelings of your Lordships by describing what the sufferings of our countrymen, as well as of the French, have been; but I may say that I received a letter from an old servant of mine in Paris, in which it was stated that she and her husband, upon the 14th of January, had left off eating cats, and dogs, and rats, and were actually reduced for sustenance to eat sausages made out of the entrails of dogs. Tallow candles had long disappeared, having been eaten, and oil also had been consumed for purposes of food; so that light in the houses during the long winter nights was impossible. This was the state of the poorer English in Paris, who found it impossible to follow Lord Lyons' advice, inasmuch as they had not the means of coming over to this country. Perhaps my noble Friend opposite will tell me whether the Government sent out any assistance in the shape of money to those persons to enable them to leave Paris, and whether those who remained did so out of sheer obstinacy or from a false feeling of courage. Quite at the end of December the bombardment began. And I must say, in passing, that, in my opinion, the bombardment of Paris will remain a blot and a stain on the escutcheon of Prussia; for, although, according to the rules of war, Prussia had a complete right to bombard Paris, as a first-class fortified town, yet it is necessity alone which supports the exercise of such rights. The city would have submitted to the moment as soon if there had been no bombardment; and from those in the city we learn that the bombardment rather roused the temper of the French and lengthened

575
the resistance. In the bombardment I believe not more than three military men were killed; but women and children suffered in great numbers, and it is a fact that one shell killed seven children at once. And so deep was the feeling which the event excited when it was proclaimed in Paris that M. Jules Favre actually followed their remains to the grave. When that event occurred, was there any Englishman in Paris to represent this country? Why, not even the military and naval Attachés of the Embassy were there. I suppose they did not leave without the orders to that effect of the noble Earl himself or of Lord Lyons. And what could possibly induce the giving of such orders? To be there at such a time was to be at their proper place and post; it was their raison d'être. Such men are sent out, as I have always understood, to learn everything that relates to foreign armaments, to become acquainted with every new invention, and to watch the performance of every new weapon. Why, it was a God-send to these men and the Government who appointed them to have a bombardment going on—they never had such a chance of learning before—and to recall those gentlemen at such a time seems to me a very doubtful proceeding—for I cannot believe that they would have left unless recalled. There can be no more gallant officer, for instance, than Colonel Claremont, who was all through the Crimean War; and I want to know the grounds upon which these two officers were called away from Paris at the very moment when valuable experience could have been obtained, when their services upon the spot could have been of great advantage to this country, and of incalculable value to the miserable English who were suffering in Paris. Thank God! the English were not totally deserted. They were taken care of by three men, whose names will be considered noble as long as the history of the siege is recorded—Mr. Wallace, Mr. Herbert—Lord Carnarvon's brother—and Mr. Blunt, whom my noble Friend afterwards very properly made Consul—and by their means, probably, hundreds were saved from misery and death. The case, however, is one which has led to very severe reflections upon this country. During this great war the acts of this country have been very narrowly watched, and I do not know anything which has
576
made a deeper impression upon the public mind than the belief that something like 1,500 or 2,000 poor English were left without any official assistance in Paris. I beg to ask my noble Friend opposite the Question of which I have given Notice—namely, Why the English Consul was absent from his post at Paris during the greatest part of the siege; and if, for a considerable period, the English population were not left there without any British official protection; and, further, whether Mr. Blunt has been permanently appointed Consul?
EARL GRANVILLE: My Lords, I am compelled to answer the noble Earl's Question at some length in order to explain to your Lordships what has happened in Paris during this war. In the first place, let me say I cannot go quite so far as the noble Earl in asserting that diplomatic and consular agents are bound to be kept in a besieged city to protect the interests of their fellow-subjects after those fellow-subjects have had every possible warning of the danger of remaining there, and of the difficulty which might attend any attempt to come away at a later period. I feel it right to say this, though it was not the guiding principle of our action as your Lordships will see on referring to the Blue Book. The French demanded that all non-combatants should retire as impeding the defence. On the 14th of September Lord Lyons wrote from Paris—
"In my despatch of the 29th ult. I reported to your Lordship the steps I had taken to call the attention of British subjects to the notice issued by the Acting Prefect of Police recommending all persons not capable of facing the enemy to leave Paris, and in your despatch of the 1st inst. your Lordship informed me that Her Majesty's Government approved of the steps I had thus taken. Further notices of the same kind have been issued by the French authorities, and I have on my part done all in my power to warn British subjects of the dangers to which they expose themselves by remaining in a town threatened with an immediate siege. Large numbers have departed, those who were unable to provide from their own means the expense of the journey having been aided by the British Charitable Fund, to which most liberal contributions have been made by the public in England."—[France-German War, No. 1 (1871) No. 130.]
I am happy to say that during the whole of that period we have been able to advance money to be disbursed in one way or other by that charitable committee for the relief of British subjects. Lord Lyons goes on to say—

577
"Finding, however, that notwithstanding the near approach of the invading army, many still linger, I have thought it right to insert in Galignani's Messenger a notice, in my own name, reminding British subjects that if, after the warnings given them, they remain at Paris, they do so at their own risk and peril, and that if they delay their departure any longer they may not hereafter be able to get away. I have also had copies of the notice printed separately for distribution among British subjects, and I have the honour to transmit some herewith to your Lordship."
I have felt it right to say this much to show the business-like steps which Lord Lyons took to warn British subjects that it was better they should withdraw. With regard to Lord Lyons himself—though my noble Friend entirely refuses to endorse the accusations which had been made against him—I beg to say that those accusations, which have been repeated in many quarters, are absolutely without foundation. At the same time that Lord Lyons is charged with cowardice in having deserted his post, I have received letters complaining of our want of sympathy as a Government in withdrawing the British Ambassador at such a time; whereas the exact contrary was the case. Let me place your Lordships in possession of what really occurred. In a letter written on the 7th of September Lord Lyons relates a conversation which he had had with Prince Metternich, referring to the representations made by Count Beust, in which the great inconvenience, and indeed impropriety, was pointed out of allowing the diplomatic body to be shut up in Paris during the siege and thus deprived of the means of communicating with their respective Governments. Prince Metternich, in consequence, spoke to M. Jules Favre, and represented to him that it was incumbent on the Foreign Minister to give notice to the diplomatic body in time to enable them to leave Paris without undue haste or inconvenience. M. Jules Favre appeared to take the same view. And what was the reply of Lord Lyons?—
"I have said to all, that, in principle, Count Beust's view appears to me just and reasonable; but that, for my own part, I do not desire to hasten my departure from Paris without very good cause. I shall, I have said, be disposed to act in concert with my colleagues in the matter, and shall feel no difficulty about leaving Paris if I am requested or advised to so by the French Government; but I shall be content to leave the matter as it stands, without making any special representation to the Minister for Foreign Affairs. I should add that it is thought to be probable that some of the Government functionaries, and among
578
them the Minister for Foreign Affairs, may determine upon removing from Paris. In this case, the diplomatic body would naturally follow the Minister through whom they communicate with the Government."—[No. 84.]
I am sure my noble Friend will see that, in cases of very exceptional difficulty, it is wise for a Government not to fetter a man too much, but to leave him with considerable discretion as to the course he should pursue. On the 19th of September, Lord Lyons wrote to me as follows:—
"Prince Metternich, the Austrian Ambassador, came to me at Paris on the 17th inst., and told me that the Comte de Chaudordy, the head of the Cabinet of the Minister for Foreign Affairs, had brought him a message from M. Jules Favre which made him think that it would be desirable that the Representatives of the principal European Powers should leave Paris at once, in order not to be cut off from communication with their Governments. M. de Chaudordy had, the Prince said, informed him that the French Government expected from one moment to another to hear that the enemy had rendered the only railroad still open (the Western) impassable; and that, this being the case, M. Jules Favre, knowing that Prince Metternich was particularly anxious not to have his communication with his Government interrupted, had thought it courteous to warn him that the danger of this occurring appeared to be imminent, and that, in fact, it would be prudent for him to leave Paris the following day at latest. I told Prince Metternich that I had, personally, a great disinclination to leave Paris just then; but that, nevertheless, I should, of course, do so if it appeared that I should be more useful elsewhere; and I added that I should certainly be unwilling to act in the matter in a different way from my principal colleagues. I must, however (I said in conclusion), see M. Jules Favre before I come to any decision."—[No. 147.]
Lord Lyons accordingly went to M. Jules Favre, and related to him what had passed between Prince Metternich and himself. His Lordship said—
"M. Jules Favre answered that his message to Prince Metternich was specially intended for the Prince himself, who had expressed to him a very marked dislike to the prospect of being hemmed in by the Prussian troops. Nevertheless he thought it only right that other Representatives of foreign Powers should know that the French Government was no longer in a position to secure their communications with the world outside Paris."
M. Jules Favre then suggested that his Lordship should go to Tours. Lord Lyons replied as follows:—
"I said that I still disliked the idea of leaving Paris just yet, but that, of course, I should not hesitate to proceed to any place in which I could have a better prospect of being useful; and that after what he had said, if I found that my principal colleagues thought it advisable that we should go off to Tours in the evening, I would no longer

579
be an obstacle to their departure. The result has been, as your Lordship is already aware, that the Austrian Ambassador, Prince Metternich; the Ottoman Ambassador, Djemil Pacha; the Italian Minister, Chevalier Nigra; the Russian Chargé d'Affaires, M. Okouneff; and I, left Paris the night before last, and arrived here yesterday. Colonel Claremont considered that, in a military point of view, Paris was the point of most interest accessible to him; and, as I concurred with him in this view, I sanctioned his remaining there. At the time I left Paris Captain Hore was too unwell to move. I left a memorandum recommending that, if able to do so, he should leave Paris as soon as he should be well enough to travel; and that if his health should not be quite re-established, he should go to England to recruit it; otherwise, that he should join me here, where he would find the Minister of Marine, and would consequently be at the main source of naval information. Finding that a not inconsiderable number of British subjects still remained in Paris, notwithstanding my repeated warnings of the risk they might incur by so doing, and of the probability that when the danger was actually present they might not be able to get away. I have left Mr. Wodehouse at the Embassy to give them advice, and, if possible, protection. I have, moreover, placed the Embassy-house, and the Government property belonging to it, in Mr. Wodehouse's charge; and I have desired him to take advantage of any opportunities he may have of sending direct to your Lordship, as well as to me, information of public interest. A few hours before I left Paris, I presented him to M. Jules Favre, who readily agreed to send and receive communications through him. Lastly, I have ordered Mr. Wodehouse to come away from Paris if the place should be threatened with immediate bombardment or other imminent danger, and have directed him, in this contingency, to do his utmost to obtain a safe passage out of Paris for all British subjects."
Now, it appears to me that, as these instructions were given, I was quite right in approving what Lord Lyons had done. I am exceedingly glad that he did leave Paris, and that he, as the holder of the dignified rank of Ambassador, went not only to Tours but also to Bordeaux; thus enabling us to say that although we could not officially recognize the existing Government, yet for all practical and business purposes our relations with it were close and intimate. I have no doubt, too, that Lord Lyons outside Paris has accomplished many things he could not have done inside the city. Lord Lyons left in Paris Mr. Wodehouse and Colonel Claremont, as he thought it would be advantageous for them to remain there with his sanction and that of the Foreign Office. Afterwards, in view of Count Bismarck's declaration, that military considerations would compel him to put a stop to all-further communication with persons inside
580
the city, Lord Lyons sent me word that he felt some anxiety with respect to the servants of the Embassy and the other British subjects who had not quitted Paris. Upon this I wrote to Count Bernstorff to obtain permission for those persons to pass through the German lines; and this leave was granted by Count Bismarck, on condition, however, that a nominal list should be furnished of the persons who desired to come out. On the other hand, the French authorities were exceedingly unwilling to let a large number of persons pass out. A month elapsed before Mr. Wodehouse left Paris, and when he did he had not quite completed his list, although he had taken every means in his power to give the requisite notice to all British subjects. He was continuing to make up the list till 12 o'clock of the day when he went away. About 126 persons accompanied him, and the hardships they had to undergo were so severe that it is doubtful whether they had not better have remained in Paris. At that time we were not aware that such a large number had remained, although we had always supposed that there were some English domestic servants, workmen, and others, who did not wish to leave Paris because they had formed connections there, while some had great difficulty in getting away on account of their poverty. With regard to the latter, I may remark that very great assistance was rendered to them by the Charitable Commission to which the Government and many charitable persons had contributed. When Mr. Wodehouse left, the Consul's clerk came away. Mr. Wodehouse was at first unwilling to allow him to come away; but on that gentleman representing that for a considerable time no application had been made to him in respect of Consular duties and the legal advisers of the Embassy having given their opinion that he would not, under the circumstances have any power there, Mr. Wodehouse included his name in the list. Colonel Claremont, however, for the reasons which had actuated him in the first instance, acting in accordance with instructions received from Lord Lyons, remained in Paris; but about the second week in December the Colonel, finding that the only other military attaché in Paris was about to leave, came away with that gentleman in obedience to orders received. The

581
noble Earl seems to think that it was a happy circumstance for Colonel Claremont to have an opportunity of being bombarded and shelled in a town undergoing that process; but the fact is, that Colonel Claremont would not have acquired much military information if he had remained longer in Paris, because there was great jealousy shown in regard to letting strangers go to the front lines, and, consequently, military information was more difficult to procure during the bombardment than it would have been at the head quarters of the army in an open campaign. I cannot therefore regret the course taken by Colonel Claremont. When Colonel Claremont came out, the French authorities had resolved not to let any other person leave the city. We afterwards ascertained, however, by indirect means, that a great many Englishmen and women were suffering very much indeed, as has been described by the noble Earl, and I have already acknowledged in my despatches the aid which was given by Messrs. Wallace, Herbert, and Blount to their poor fellow-countrymen. About £42,000 was expended in giving this relief. I may add that Mr. Clark, a clergyman, also devoted himself to the work in a most remarkable way. Immediately upon hearing this we endeavoured to get our Consul in; but at that time matters had gone so far that permission to enter Paris was positively refused to everybody. We did our best to meet the difficulty by communicating with Mr. Odo Russell. From the statement of facts I have made I hope your Lordships will conclude that there has not been any neglect, but that some of the inconveniences experienced have arisen from unparalleled, circumstances, against which it was impossible to provide at the beginning.
House adjourned at Seven o'clock, to Thursday next, a quarter past Eleven o'clock.