Sitting of 7 February 1860

MINUTES.
NEW MEMBER SWORN.—For Forfarshire, Right hon. Charles Carnegie.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1° Marriages (England and Ireland); Charitable Uses; Window Cleaning; Bleaching and Dyeing Works. 2° Tramways (Ireland).

FRIDAY ADJOURNMENTS.
MR. STEUARTgave notice of a Motion for Thursday next,
"That it would tend to the regularity of Debate, on the Motion for Adjournment on Fridays, if the Clerk were instructed to place in their order on the paper, one after another, all questions to be addressed to each particular Member of the Government; and if Mr. Speaker were to call on honourable Members in such order, and the Member of the Government to reply, so that each subject might be closed before a different one taken up; and that the Clerk be so instructed accordingly."

COMMERCIAL TREATY WITH FRANCE.

  QUESTION.
  MR. SEYMOUR FITZGERALDsaid, he understood the noble Lord at the head of the Government to state on the previous evening, that the noble Lord the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs would lay the Commercial Treaty with France, which had been lately ratified, on the table of the House on Friday. Since that time what appeared to be the contents of the Treaty had been published in a foreign journal, and had been copied into the London newspapers. After what had fallen from the noble Lord, he would not urge the immediate production of the Treaty, were it not that while the possession of no information on the subject might be inconvenient to those engaged in trade with France, the possession of information, imperfect and, perhaps, more or less inaccurate, would be likely to lead to very serious inconvenience indeed. He would, therefore, like to ask the noble Lord, Whether he can inform the House, whether the version of the Treaty given in the morning journals,
  610
  and by them universally accepted as accurate, is substantially accurate or not?
  LORD JOHN RUSSELL: I cannot say that I read with any attention the report of the Treaty given in the papers. No doubt it is partially accurate, but I do not think a Commercial Treaty of that kind, containing many complicated provisions, can be properly understood by the House and by the country unless they were in possession of the Treaty itself. I propose to lay it on the table, by Her Majesty's command, on Friday next.

THE PATENT FOR PRINTING BIBLES, &c.

  QUESTION.
  MR. BLACKsaid, he rose to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if the Patent of the Queen's Printers for printing Bibles and Acts of Parliament has been renewed, and, if so, what are the terms on which it has been renewed; and, if the Patent has not been renewed, on what conditions are Bibles and Acts of Parliament now printed?
  SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, that the Select Committee which was appointed by the House to inquire into the propriety of renewing the Patent of the Queen's Printer! with regard to the printing of Bibles and Prayer Books, not having been able to complete its inquiries last Session, had re-commended the appointment of a similar Committee this Session, and the temporary renewal to the Queen's Printer in the mean-time of the Patent for printing Bibles and Prayer Books for a limited period. The Patent had therefore been renewed for the object stated, during Her Majesty's pleasure. With regard to the printing of Acts of Parliament and public Proclamations the Patent had not been renewed, but an arrangement had been made by which the Queen's Printer was to print them for the public at a reduced rate.
  MR. BLACK: Would the right hon. Baronet have any objection to produce the Minute?
  SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, he was not aware that there was any Minute, but he had no objection to produce any documents on the subject.

  AFFAIRS OF ITALY—QUESTION.
  LORD CLAUD HAMILTONsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if it is true that Lord Cowley has been instructed to communicate to the French Government a project

  611
  for the definitive settlement of the Italian question; and, if so, whether he has any objection to commuicate the details of that project to the House?
  LORD JOHN RUSSELL: Sir it will be necessary for me, in order to give satisfaction to the noble Lord, to enter into some account of what has lately taken place. At present I cannot produce the papers because negotiations are still pending which, however, may soon be in such a state that I shall be at liberty to lay them on the table. What has passed is this:—The House is aware from Her Majesty's Speech that Her Majesty was invited to take part in a Conference or Congress respecting the affairs of Italy. At a certain period when it was expected the Congress was to meet, we received intimation from the French Government that it was adjourned sine die, but that we should be informed if there was any intention of its assembling hereafter. It was said that the delay, or rather the entire postponement, of the Congress was owing to the publication of an anonymous pamphlet at Paris. Be that as it may, Her Majesty's Government felt that it was a very serious condition of affairs if, that the Italians, who had hitherto been waiting in expectation that Italian affairs would be solved by the Congress, should have no regular Government and no apparent means of terminating the condition of uncertainty in which they were placed. Her Majesty's Government, therefore, made propositions to the Governments of France and Austria, with a view to the definitive solution of the Italian question. Those proposals were contained in a despatch to Earl Cowley, dated, I think, the 14th of January. The first proposal was that, as the rivalry of France and Austria had led to great evils in Italy and great danger to Europe, those two Powers should agree not to interfere in future by force in the internal affairs of the Italian Peninsula without the consent of the five great Powers. By the second proposition it was proposed that the French troops should, at a convenient time and with all proper precautions, withdraw from Lombardy and Rome. By the third proposition it was proposed that the Governments of Europe should not interfere in the internal Government of Venetia—that no proposition should be made to qualify the internal Government of Venetia by the Emperor of Austria. To these three proposals the Government of France, with certain modifications as to the time and season
  612
  for withdrawing their troops, gave their ready consent. Upon the fourth proposition they begged time to consider, and time to communicate with the Government of Austria. The fourth proposition was to the effect that the King of Sardinia should be asked not to send any troops into Central Italy until there should be, by a new election and a new vote of the States and Provinces of Central Italy, a clear and unbiassed declaration of their wishes with respect to their future destiny—that if that wish should be in favour of annexation to Sardinia, then the restriction to which it was proposed to ask the King of Sardinia to submit should be removed, and no objection made to his introducing troops into the provinces of Central Italy—meaning, of course, those provinces which have declared they will no longer be governed by their late rulers. The French Government has accordingly communicated with the Government of Austria upon that subject, but no official communication of the decision of Austria has yet been received. This very morning I received a despatch from our Ambassador at Vienna, to the effect, that Count Rechberg promised to take the Emperor of Austria's orders, but that he could not give an official answer without receiving the Emperor's instructions and commands. With respect to ourselves, the Austrian Government, on receiving the communication of the three propositions to which they were asked to consent, made objection that it was not in conformity with their views and opinions as to the rights of sovereignty to make any absolute engagements with regard to non-intervention. With regard to the fourth proposition, although they could not acknowledge the state of things which has arisen in Central Italy from an insurrection, at the same time Count Rechberg declared to Lord Augustus Loftus in Vienna, and Count Apponyi has declared to me in London, that the Austrian Government have no intention whatever to interfere in the affairs of Italy; that they are not going to send any forces beyond their own frontiers; and that they shall confine themselves strictly to the defence of their own possessions, which are declared by treaty to be part of the dominions of the Emperor of Austria. These declarations, combined with the willingness of the French Government to entertain the three first proposals, give great hope that we shall arrive, by these means, at a settlement of Italy which, although not imme-

  613
  diately acknowledged by all the Powers of Europe, will at the same time be a pacific settlement, and prevent a renewal of war. Immediately after communicating with the Governments of France and Austria, I directed communications of the same proposals to Prussia and Russia for their information and subsequent decision. With regard to Russia, I have not received any answer whatever. The Prussian Government has not made any objection to the proposals, but delays making a definite answer until the opinions of France and Austria have been ascertained. This is exactly the substance of what has hitherto passed. The noble Lord will see that these are rather the beginning of negotiations, and I cannot at present be authorized by Her Majesty to place the papers on the table of the House.

  THE ADMIRALTY.—QUESTION.
  MR. KINNAIRDsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of the Admiralty what steps the Board of Admiralty have taken, or are about to take, to carry out the recommendations contained in the Report of the Committee of Inquiry on the Economy of Her Majesty's Dock-yards, presided over by Admiral Smart, and in the Report of the Committee on Steam Machinery, presided over by Admiral Ramsay?
  LORD CLARENCE PAGETsaid, the Admiralty had under their serious consideration the Report of the two Committees to which the hon. Member referred. They had been able to carry out various recommendations, but with regard to one of the most important they had thought it right to call for the opinions of the principal officers of Somerset House, as well as the superintendents of the dockyards. The observations of those officers he hoped to be able to lay on the table the next day. The Duke of Somerset had given the greatest consideration to the recommendations of the Committees, and had drawn up a memorandum, which had been laid before the Board of Admiralty. He also hoped to lay that paper, with a board minute attached, on the table at the same time. The Committee on the dockyards recommended that there should be laid before Parliament statements of the annual cost of all ships of Her Majesty's navy. He hoped to be able to lay on the table that return, which he thought was of some interest, in a few days. But he was bound to state with candour that the return was
  614
  not so perfect as he should wish it to be. It was, however, a novelty, and the details of the expenditure upon the different ships had not perhaps been kept in as satisfactory a manner as they ought to have been. When the hon. Member for Newcastle brought forward his Motion for inquiry into the shipbuilding of the Admiralty, he should be able to go more fully into the subject.
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTONasked, whether the references to the officers at Somerset House, and the memorandum of the Duke of Somerset, related to the Reports of both the Committees?
  LORD CLARENCE PAGETsaid, that the observations of the officers of Somerset House referred to the Report of the Dockyards Committee only, but the memorandum of the Duke of Somerset related principally to the Report of the Dockyard Committee, but had also reference to that of the Committee on Steam Machinery.

DIVORCE AND MATRIMONIAL CAUSES COURT.

  LEAVE. MOTION NEGATIVED.
  LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, he rose to move for leave to introduce a Bill to enable the Court for Divorce and Matrimonial Causes to hold its sittings with closed doors. He had hoped that the notoriety of the evil to which he had to direct the attention of the House, and the fact that the remedy he was about to propose was identical with one which had been proposed by her Majesty's Government last year, would have rendered it unnecessary for them to enter into any discussion at that stage of the question. But, as the hon. and learned Member for Marylebone (Mr. E. James) had given notice of his intention to oppose the introduction of the Bill, he (Lord J. Manners) felt it necessary to preface his Motion by a few observations, and to describe the remedy he proposed. But at the outset he might say that it was not his desire in any way to re-open the discussions which had preceded the establishment of that Court. For good or evil that institution was now the law of the land, and whatever his opinion might be, he did not propose to say a word on its effect upon public morality or domestic purity. The evil for which he was then anxious to provide a remedy was one which appeared to him to be purely accidental, and quite unnecessary as a concomitant of the Act of Parliament which established that tribunal. It would be in the recollection of the House that in the

  615
  course of the debates which had preceded the passing of that measure great stress had been laid on the good which would result to the community at large from the suppression of those painful and indecent details which used occasionally to transpire in what were called crim. con. actions and petitions for divorce to the House of Lords; but he would ask the House whether any change for the better had really taken place in that respect, and whether they could now place in the hands of their children, or of other members of their families, the daily records that were published of the proceedings in the new court with any greater security that their eyes would not light upon whole columns of indecency and moral filth than they could have done before that change in the law had been effected? The reverse was the case, and the question had now come to this issue—a man must either abstain, during the sitting of the Divorce Court, from taking in the daily papers, or consent to place in the hands of his wife and children details of the most indecent and abominable nature. It was a heathen moralist of corrupted Rome that exclaimed—
  "Nil dictu fœdum visuque, hæs limina tangat,
  Intra quæ puer est.
  Maxima debetur pueris reverentia."
  And acting upon that principle, the Legislature some three years ago, at the instance of the present Lord Chancellor, passed a law which had for its object the closing of those fountains of moral pollution which were calculated to corrupt the youth of this metropolis; but it was his (Lord John Manners') deliberate conviction that during the last autumn and winter the evils resulting from the publicity of the proceedings of the Divorce Court were far more widely spread than had been those which had resulted from the indecent publications of Holywell Street. And for this reason: the man who entered that place and purchased one of those publications did so with his eyes open; hut in the instance of the Divorce Court, wherever the English language was read or understood, details equally corrupt and disgusting were by a sort of unfortunate fatality spread broad-cast before the public eye. Hence had arisen the feeling in the public mind to which he asked the House to pay respectful deference. But the evil of which he complained did not end here. Last year the Attorney General directed the attention of the House to another and incidental evil attending the publicity of these transactions, He was no lawyer, but
  616
  he thought, nevertheless, he should be able in a few sentences to remind the House of the importance of that particular aspect of the question to which the Attorney General had alluded. The Attorney General painted in strong, but by no means in too strong colours, the evils which would result if, by the rejection of the clause then before the House, they virtually compelled the Court to conduct all its proceedings with open doors. That learned Gentleman entreated the House to consider whether for the sake of justice itself the greatest evil would not ensue from enforcing publicity, and pointed out how a young and innocent and pure-minded woman might be compelled, by this system of enforced publicity, to come before the Court, crowded as it generally was with the most abandoned of both sexes, and before the recording pens of the representatives of the public press, to give evidence of a most painful and excruciating character. The Attorney General suggested whether it was not likely, rather than submit to so terrible an ordeal, that in many cases the innocent victim would not shrink from asking for that relief and justice to which she was by law entitled. He left it to those who presided over and who practised in that Court to say whether since the Attorney General had made that appeal the anticipations of the learned Gentleman had not been fully realized. He (Lord J. Manners) had been told that they had been so, and therefore the case he had urged primarily on the ground of public decency and domestic purity had become infinitely stronger; and he felt armed with an additional argument in favour of the measure he proposed to introduce, namely, that of simple justice to those unhappy individuals. The remedy he proposed to apply to the evils of which he complained, and to which he did not wish further to allude, was of an obvious character. It was not his intention to give a single instance of the indecency of those publications, nor to condescend to the mention of any one particular report. The facts to which he had referred were known to every Member of that House, and the evil of which he complained was patent on the surface. The remedy he proposed for this notorious evil was simply that already suggested by the able Judge who presided over the court in question, sanctioned by the highest authorities in the House of Lords, and recommended by the ablest lawyers in the Upper House—a proposition which had been urged upon the attention

  617
  and consideration of that House by the learned Attorney General himself. That remedy was simply to grant to the Divorce Court the privilege of conducting its proceedings with closed doors whenever in its discretion it seemed fitting to it to do so. Such a privilege had been exercised by the Ecclesiastical Court and the House of Lords, when between them they managed the divorce business of the country. It was at present possessed by the Courts of Chancery and by the analogous courts of Scotland, France, and other countries, and according to universal testimony, it might be safely entrusted to the discretion of the eminent Judges that presided over the Divorce Court. That being the simple remedy proposed for the evil referred to, he was at a loss to see how his proposal could be so objectionable as to procure for it the unusual honour of being opposed at that stage. He might be told of the well known adage that "Publicity was the soul of justice." To that maxim he respectfully bowed. He was willing to admit its truth, which indeed was obvious. But he would meet it with another maxim, equally obvious and of equal acceptation "There is no rule without an exception." Now, he thought the exception in the present case was founded on the paramount interest of public decency and domestic morality. He was not going beyond the mark when he said that nine-tenths of the statute laws of the land were in reality exceptions to general and well-received principles. Take the case upon which such public interest was manifested at present, they were all most anxious for, and in expectation of, the perfect, speedy, and he hoped lasting, restoration to health of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in order that the right hon. Gentleman might, on Friday next, be able to explain to the House those reasons that had induced Her Majesty's Government to depart from the well-known and received maxim of political economy in the negotiation of a treaty of commerce with the Emperor of the French. If hon. Members, too, would cast their eyes upon the paper of the House for that night they would find mention made of three Bills for the enactment of provisions in direct violation of certain well-received principles of political economy. The exceptional legislation three years ago with the view of putting a stop to the indecent publications of Holywell Street was also in direct violation of a well-received principle. No doubt it was then exclaimed that "an Englishman's house was his cas-
  618
  tle." Notwithstanding the recognition of this popular maxim, however, the House departed from the rule and permitted an exception in the paramount interest of decency and public morality. Well, he simply asked the House to adopt a similar course now. Perhaps it might be said that the remedy was unnecessary, since it was already in the power of the Court to close the doors; but whatever might have been the case previously that argument could no longer be used after the introduction of the Bill of last year, which showed that the presiding Judge, the legal authorities of the House of Lords, and the law officers were of opinion that he did not possess the power of closing the doors of the court until the Legislature gave it by statute. No one, he thought, would contend that this power might not be exercised as advantageously for the public interests by the Judges of this court as it had heretofore been exercised in the Courts of Chancery; and if such a discretion were permitted, to whom could its exercise more properly be intrusted than to that distinguished man who presided over the Court of Probate and Divorce? In bringing forward this Bill he was actuated by no indirect wish either to damage or to prop up the new system of divorce by law. He scorned the motives which had been imputed to him, and he attributed no unworthy objects to others. The evil, he contended, was patent, flagrant, and increasing; the remedy was simple, obvious, and innocuous; and it came before them recommended by the heads of the law, and by the very founders and framers of that Court in which he proposed that it should be put into operation. If there were those who believed that any other remedy was capable of being applied to this admitted evil, let them propose their plan, and he would most cheerfully support it; but meanwhile, he entreated the House not to withhold its sanction from the introduction of a measure directed to so desirable an end, and recommended by so great a weight of authority. With these few observations he begged leave to move for leave to introduce the Bill of which he had given notice.
  Motion made and Question proposed,—
  "That leave be given to bring in a Bill to enable the Court for Divorce and Matrimonial Causes to hold its Sittings with closed doors."
  MR. EDWIN JAMESsaid, his reason for taking the rather unusual course of

  619
  resisting the introduction of the Bill was, that the matter had been fully discussed and decided in the last Session of Parliament. The Divorce Court Bill came down with a clause introduced by the Lord Chancellor, with the object of accomplishing that which was proposed by the present measure. It was supported to some extent by the Attorney General; but the feeling of the House had so strongly manifested itself against closing the doors of this court that the clause was rejected without a division. After this express decision, he believed the House would now declare its opinion that the present Bill was inexpedient and unnecessary. He imputed no motives whatever to the noble Lord; he believed that he was actuated alone by the sincere desire of suppressing what he considered indecent reports of the proceedings in that court; but he hoped to show the House in a few sentences that such a course would be highly injudicious. The noble Lord had referred to the practice of the Ecclesiastical Courts and the Court of Chancery; but if ever the Court of Divorce—which as at present administered enjoyed the sanction and confidence of the public—were to adopt the same rules for the administration of its business as the old Ecclesiastical Courts to which reference had been made, it would soon fall into utter contempt and disrepute. The Lord Chancellor, it was true, equally with the Judge of the Divorce Court, had power, with the consent of counsel acting for both parties, to retire into a private room and hear the case, if he thought proper to do so; but he entertained great doubt whether the Lord Chancellor could close his court against the public, and he believed that if a case of trespass were brought by any person who had been excluded, it would be established by the constituted authorities that the Court of Chancery was a public court, and the Lord Chancellor had no right to close it. The notion that closed doors would effect the object the noble Lord had in view was quite delusive. Why, if it were known that a sort of mysterious Court was sitting at Westminster Hall, whose avenues were unapproachable to the public, and that cases were going on there which might not be reported, a prurient curiosity would at once be engendered, and they would have all sorts of erroneous reports furnished either by reporters in wigs and gowns or by attorneys or their clerks; and a morbid desire to procure them would be evidenced on the part of the public. Was
  620
  the noble Lord, who had cited no instance which occurred since last Session in support of his argument, prepared to extend the principle of his Bill to the Police Courts, and other courts of criminal jurisdiction in this country? Yet a charge of perjury had arisen out of proceedings in a suit before the Divorce Court, which it became requisite to try before one of the criminal tribunals, and the details of which occupied day after day the columns of the public journals. The better course, he believed, was to repose confidence in the taste and good sense of the press, which, since the decision in August, had not abused the power of publishing cases from that court. Hon. Members who had acted as counsel in cases of this nature would bear him out in the statement, that since that period cases had occurred involving details of the most filthy or disgusting character, and yet no such details had been given to the public. These cases might be safely left to the judgment of the press, for if there existed a prurient desire on the part of the public to have these details, they would be furnished in a much more objectionable way than at present. The debates in that House were at one period forbidden to be published; and Dr. Johnson told the translator of Demosthenes that he got from the door-keepers and uniformly published imaginary debates; and that he always took care that "those dogs of Whigs" always got the worse of it. The noble Lord was of opinion that by the reports which appeared from the Divorce Court a public scandal was occasioned; but he considered that a vital principle was at stake in the matter, and that although the maxim might be trite it was still as true as when Bentham wrote it, that publicity was vital to the administration of English justice, and to the confidence which the people of England reposed in it. He should therefore conclude by moving, as an Amendment, the Previous Question.
  Whereupon Previous Question put—"That that Question be now put."
  MR. ROEBUCKsaid, a remark had once been made by Swift, which the present Motion of the noble Lord fully verified. This was, that "the nicest persons had the nastiest ideas." The proposition of the noble Lord seemed to have originated in the same state of feeling that possessed the American lady whose sense of modesty was so wonderfully acute as to be offended by the naked legs of her pianoforte. If the

  621
  noble Lord had taken into account the end which was sought to be attained by the Divorce Court, he would, he thought, have arrived at a different conclusion. That Court had been created for a mixed object; it affected not merely private rights and obligations, but also public obligations. It not only determined whether a man should be divorced from his wife, but it went further, and declared why he should be divorced, and by that means it affected public morality. If the Court was shut up, one of these great means of operating upon the public morality would be utterly taken away. He was aware that it had been said that the English notion of morality was confined to picking a pocket and seducing another man's wife. But there were other things which he read daily in the papers by which he was much more affected. He constantly saw in the reports of the Police Courts that men were brought up for thrashing their wives, almost beating out their eyes, and nearly taking away their lives. These things went on from day to day, and disgraced the people of England in the eyes of Europe and of the world; but no one got up and said that they ought not to be made public. Another great object which had been effected by the publicity of proceedings in the Divorce Court was the dispelling of the idea that immoral practices were confined to the upper and lowest classes of society; and it had been shown that among the middle class what was particularly recognized by Englishmen as immorality as was rife as in any other, and he thought this a very great benefit; he hated shams, and he believed the morality of the middle class to be as great a sham as had ever existed. There ought, then, to be a degree of healthy hardihood in a man's character which would enable him to bear this exposure. The noble Lord had stated that it was impossible to put a newspaper into the hands of one's wife or daughter since the establishment of the Divorce Court. This statement he denied altogether; and he maintained that nothing had been more creditable than the conduct of the public press on this question. They had the most filthy details before them—aye, and from the middle class too, and they had not shocked any decent man's or woman's mind by what they had disclosed. Were they to live in a fool's paradise? Was it right that the middle class should continue to appear as models of angelic purity, when they were
  622
  as earthly and immoral as any other class? No; let truth be told. The noble Lord stated that the Judges of the criminal courts bad the power of shutting out women and children. Yes; but how was it done? In a criminal case, the Judge has the depositions before him, and knows what is going to be proved is of a character that women and children had better not hear. The Judge of the Divorce Court could not do this; and, as a Judge, would act only on his individual caprice, and he would ask the House whether it could expect from a court of justice the advantages it was intended to produce, if it was left to the caprice of the Judge to decide what was fit to be made public? When the name of Sir C. Cresswell was mentioned, no one was more ready than he (Mr. Roebuck) to bear testimony to his merits; but though the law would he everlasting, the Judges would change. Each Judge would act on his own opinion; one might exclude the public, the next might take a different view of the case. Then they might have a prurient Judge—there were such things—who might delight to make jokes before his Court that he would not dare to utter if the press was present. Even now, with the control of the press, he could put his finger on Judges whose jokes did no honour to an English court of justice. One great use of a court of justice was to serve as a guide to the morality of the people. The people would be shut out from one of the best schools for teaching morality, and their imaginations would picture the secret proceedings a thousand times worse than anything the public was likely to read. The Motion of the noble Lord, therefore, though made with the best possible intentions—hell was paved with them—would do the greatest possible mischief, and he should oppose it.
  LORD ROBERT CECILsaid, the hon. and learned Gentleman had argued the question as if obscene publications could do no harm to public morals. [Mr. ROEBUCK: No.] He could not now take that line of argument, the House having three years ago passed a statute prohibiting the sale of such publications. In the works prescribed by that statute there was nothing that equalled in grossness the reports of the Divorce Court that appeared in some of the newspapers. He admitted this reproach did not apply to the respectable journals; but there was a class of newspapers that derived their most attractive matter from the Divorce Court, It was

  623
  stated that the Lord Chancellor and other Judges could hear cases in their private rooms with closed doors, but by a decision of Sir Cresswell Cresswell that was no longer possible in his Court. He had chosen to decide, because this House had rejected a clause giving him power to exclude reporters from his Court, that therefore it was not competent for him to exercise the power possessed by the other Judges of hearing cases in a private room. The Divorce Court, therefore, no longer possessed the power of the other Courts. The argument had been urged that it would be a grievance to the public if publicity were not given to the proceedings of these Courts; but it should be remembered that publicity was a grievance to the suitors. The most refined as well as the lowest of women might be concerned in cases of this nature, and to women of every class of society the publicity to which their cases were exposed acted, in many instances, as an absolute denial of justice. The tendency of all recent legislation had been to make justice easy to be obtained by every one, as in the creation of County Courts. If the Legislature had done so much where only money was concerned, it was the more bound to do something for the class of cases that affected public morality and decency. By the old system the evidence in such cases was given in writing, not vivâa voce. Notwithstanding the insinuation of the hon. and learned Gentleman, he should support the Motion of the noble Lord, trusting that the House would act in the decision of the question with a due regard to the interests of decency and purity.
  SIR GEORGE LEWIS: Sir, the most convenient course when there is any doubt as to the provisions of a Bill is to agree to the Motion for its introduction, in order that those provisions may be afterwards explained by the hon. Member who wishes to bring the subject under the consideration of the House. In this instance, however, I am bound to say the noble Lord has treated the question as if he were debating the Bill on the seconding reading. He has made a speech of a somewhat controversial nature, and he has removed all doubt as to the nature of the measure which he seeks to introduce by saying that it was a repetition of the proposal made last Session. Therefore, not entertaining any doubt as to the vote which I should give on the second reading, I am prepared, though contrary to what I consider to be
  624
  the most convenient practice of the House, to vote in favour of the Amendment of the hon. and learned Member for Marylebone. Now, Sir, I will proceed to discuss this question as if the question before us were the second reading of the Bill. The proposal of the noble Lord is in fact to bring in a Bill, the effect of which would be to create a privileyium with respect to the Court of Divorce. He does not propose to alter the general law of the country with regard to trials in which indecent matter, matter which is unfit for general perusal, may be given in evidence before the Court, commented upon by the counsel, or stated in his charge by the Judge to the jury. He docs not propose to introduce a general measure including every civil court, every criminal court, and the preliminary proceedings before magistrates, but he proposes to establish a separate rule with reference to the Divorce Court. Well, now, Sir, my objection to this Bill rests upon its being a peculiar and discriminating measure. If the noble Lord had proposed a general measure with respect to all courts, I might have been disposed at all events to go to a second reading of the Bill; but it appears to me that unless he is prepared to lay down a universal rule there is the gravest objection to the singling out of the Court of Divorce as a subject of exceptional legislation. On what ground does the noble Lord rest this exceptional—this differential measure, if I may so term it? It may, perhaps, be argued that trials in which highly indecorous and obscene matter is introduced do not come before our criminal courts. Now it must be a matter of notoriety that cases far more gross in their literal description occur in the administration of the criminal law than occur before the Court of Divorce. I do not wish to pain the House by a more minute allusion to such cases, but it is notorious they do occur. Now what is the course which the Judges pursue on such occasions? They order the women and children out of court, and that, I presume, is in accordance with the law of the country. I presume that a woman who was ordered out of court under such circumstances would have no action of trespass. But there is no attempt to drive reporters out of court under such circumstances, or to carry on the proceedings with closed doors, which is what the noble Lord proposes shall be done in the Divorce Court. The Lord Chancellor, I think, sometimes retires into a private room, and hears counsel there,

  625
  the public being altogether excluded; but those cases arc purely exceptional; and I believe that the exclusion takes place not because there is anything to shock public decency, but because the private interests of the parties render such an arrangement desirable. Such a. power is undoubtedly exercised, but it is rarely exercised by the Lord Chancellor. Now, Sir, under these circumstances it does not appear to me that a sufficient case has been made out for subjecting the Court of Divorce to special legislation. We know that when cases similar to those now tried in the Court of Divorce came before the House of Lords and before the Ecclesiastical Courts they were reported at great length—the cases tried in the House of Lords especially, which sometimes had lengthened interrogatories introduced into them by some noble Lords, and the evidence was duly reported in the newspapers. I do not remember, however, that any Peers of Parliament ever had such a regard for public decency as to insist on the examinations taking place with closed doors, although, be it borne in mind, it would have been competent to the House of Lords, without any special legislation, to exclude strangers during the reception of the evidence on a private Bill. Nevertheless I am not aware that any of the noble Lords who have had so much experience in the administration of justice ever resorted to that contrivance for the purpose of preventing the publication of that class of cases. Under these circumstances, and not thinking it necessary for the protection of public morality to subject the Divorce Court to this special legislation, I shall vote for the Amendment. I cannot conceive that there is any reason for doubting that the ordinary law and the ordinary practice of newspapers with respect to the publication of details of this kind will afford less protection to the public interest in the case of the Divorce Court than in the case of other courts.
  MR. MALINSsaid, he did not deny the existence of the evil for which the noble Lord (Lord J. Manners) sought to provide a remedy, but he could not on that account consent to arm the Judge of the Divorce Court with a power which he regarded as unconstitutional, and which he believed would be found to be detrimental to the public interest. The noble Lord, in dealing with the subject, had made some observations which showed that he laboured under an erroneous impression with respect
  626
  to the practice of the Court of Chancery, for it was only in certain cases, such as those affecting the relations between guardian and ward, parent and child, husband and wife, and then only when no question of a dissolution of the marriage tie was involved, that the Lord Chancellor disposed of cases in private; taking that course, it should be remembered, not because of the injury which a hearing with open doors might do the public morals, but out of regard to the feelings and interests of the parties themselves and their families. In the case of the suits which came before the Divorce Court, however, the matter was entirely different, for they involved not only questions bearing upon family relations, but questions deeply affecting the public whose interest it was to know what the causes were which had led to so important a social disruption as the breaking of the marriage tie. Let him for a moment suppose that such a step could be taken without the knowledge of the public, where, then, he should like to know, would any adequate safeguard against collusion between the husband and wife desirous of a separation from one another be found? He should, moreover, wish to be informed in whom the discretion as to whether a particular case should be heard in public or with closed doors, was to be vested? Was it to be a point on which the parties to the suit might themselves decide? If so, it would often happen that the wishes of the different parties would clash, inasmuch as the offending wife or husband, as it might be, would naturally seek for that secrecy which the innocent petitioner or respondent would as naturally desire to avoid. He might, however, be told that the Judge was the person to whom was to be committed the authority to hear a cause in private or not, as he might think fit; but to the proposal to confer such a discretion upon our Judges he could only say that while they themselves would be the very last persons to wish for such a power, which was of a character much too arbitrary to be intrusted to the hands of any public functionary, however high, he believed its exercise would have the effect of removing that check upon the violation of the marriage vows which the fear of publicity now supplied. Entertaining these opinions and a strong repugnance to the principles of the Bill, he should vote for the Amendment.
  MR. MACAULAYsaid, that from the observations which had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of

  627
  State for the Home Department, it was to be inferred that he could hardly be aware that the reason why the clause—having a similar object as that which the Bill of the noble Lord proposed to effect—had not been pressed to a division when it came down from the House of Lords last Session was, that it was so worded as not to meet the interests and take into account the feelings of parties to the suit and their families, but was based solely upon the ground of the shock to public decency which the publication of the evidence in trials in the Divorce Court involved. The noble Lord, on the other hand, asked permission to introduce this Bill on the ground of the interest of suitors, not in all cases, but in instances in which suitors would otherwise be practically deterred from seeking a remedy unless this restriction on the publicity of proceedings were imposed. It so happened that since the House last discussed the question the Court had, on two occasions, thought fit to deny to itself the right of proceeding with closed doors. The first was a case in which the wife charged cruelty against her husband under circumstances peculiarly revolting; and the second was one in which the wife sought to annul the marriage on a ground which had already been hinted at, and when for the first time in this country, and the first time in Christendom, a modest woman was placed in the witness-box and obliged in presence of the public to speak to details to which he could only darkly allude. That was not a question of indecency or adultery, or in which any of those details occurred which issued in pamphlets from Holywell Street and were published so largely in penny papers; it was one of a totally different nature, which it was impossible to contend could not be safely conducted in private by such Judges as now presided in the court. All he said was that under certain circumstances, subject to whatever restrictions Parliament might impose, the Judges of this court should have the power of deciding that particular cases should be heard without an audience. The hon. and learned Member for Sheffield had asked how the Judges were to distinguish the cases which ought to be heard in private; but the hon. and learned Member must have forgotten that every material fact must be stated on the face of the petition and pleadings, and the Judge had therefore the full means of knowing whether the details would be not only painful to hear and improper to read, but whether the enforcement of a public
  628
  hearing of these matters would be destructive to the interests of families who were parties to the suit. He did not, of course, know what shape the Bill might assume on the second reading; but he felt confident that any Bill with such a general object as he had described might readily be moulded into a form by which substantial justice would be done without any of those mischiefs which had been anticipated as the possible result. He regretted that the hon. and learned Attorney General was not in his place that evening. He had read his speech on this question when formerly before the House, as conclusive in favour of some legislation on the subject. It was an unanswerable argument in favour of a power being given to this Court to close its doors in certain cases. He therefore protested against the rejection of the noble Lord's Motion; he should most certainly give him his support.
  LORD JOHN MANNERSreplied: The hon. and learned Member for Marylebone (Mr. E. James) in his opening statement remarked that this proposal had already been discussed and decided in the House of Commons. No doubt the Attorney General had made a most gallant defence in favour of this clause, and afterwards withdrew it. But he (Lord J. Manners) believed that if the House of Commons had really been present in body on that occasion as it was now, the Attorney General would never have yielded to metropolitan pressure as he had done on the eleventh of August last year. He felt great difficulty in answering the observations of the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield (Mr. Roebuck), for he could hardly put himself in the mental position of a man who could regard and describe the Court of Divorce as it then existed as a great school of morality. He (Lord J. Manners) would ask the hon. Member when he next spoke on the subject to define what, in his opinion, was the greatest school of immorality. He was at a loss to see how the hon. Gentleman could say that the disclosures in that court could tend in any degree to the promotion of morality. The right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary had given the House several reasons against this clause, which, whatever force they might have now, had surely as much force last July and August, when he was a consenting Member of the Government to bring in this clause, in favour of which he could say nothing now. But where was the right hon. Gentleman when the Lord Chancellor and

  629
  other Members of the Government carried the clause in the other House, and the hon. and learned Attorney General so ably advocated it in the House of Commons. Had anything occurred since that time to make the Bill less useful now than it was then, or did the House not know that from one end of the country to the other there was a universal wish that some such measure should be adopted? The hon. and learned Member for Wallingford (Mr. Mallins) said there were far more indecent cases tried before the criminal courts than in the Divorce Court; but he forgot that, whereas in those courts these cases were the exception, the Divorce Court was occupied almost exclusively with cases of this sort. He understood there was now upwards of 600 cases waiting to be tried before this court, while in the other courts such cases came few and far between. He had brought forward this Motion solely in view of public morality and decency, and he trusted that what the House and the Government thought advisable and necessary last year would not be thought unnecessary or unadvisable now,
  The House divided:—Ayes 83; Noes 268: Majority 185.

BLEACHING AND DYEING WORKS.

  LEAVE. FIRST READING.
  MR. CROOKsaid, he rose to move for leave to bring in a Bill to place the employment of Women, Young Persons, and Children in Bleaching and Dyeing Works under the regulations of the Factories Acts. He thought every hon. Member must admit that the Factories Actw as an unmixed benefit to every class connected with it, and the employment of women and children in bleaching and dyeing works was of very much the same character as in factories. He would not go into the question further than by stating that the evidence which had been collected by the Commission and also by Committees of that House, completely established the justice of the measure. The Committee had recommended that there should be a voluntary arrangement, but that recommendation had not been acted upon, and the evils were still in so unmitigated a form that he must ask leave to introduce the Bill.
  SIR GEORGE LEWISobserved, that if he were to take the same course upon this Bill as he had taken on the measure of the noble Lord opposite, he would not have
  630
  consented to this Motion, because a Bill certainly similar in its object had been condemned by a Committee of that House. But this measure concerned a very large body of persons, and there were, he understood, some of the provisions in the proposed measure, new. For these reasons he would not oppose the introduction of the Bill, it being distinctly understood that he reserved to himself full power of dissenting to an extension of the Act to bleaching and dyeing works.
  LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, it was not correct to say that the Select Committee referred to by the right hon. Gentleman, and of which he (Lord J. Manners) had been a Member, had condemned this or any other Bill having a similar object. What the Committee did was this: they recommended that time should be given to the masters to see whether they could not themselves do something to arrange the disputes between themselves and the employed. Two years had elapsed since that recommendation was given. He had not heard that the masters had during that period done anything in the matter; and under these circumstances he was glad to find that the Bill before the House would be allowed to come on for a second reading in order that the House might have an opportunity of learning how things stood.
  MR. TURNERsaid, he was of opinion that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Bolton had shown rather more pertinacity than sound judgment in now asking leave to introduce the Bill. Several attempts had been made at this sort of legislation, which had proved ineffectual, and had been negatived in that House by large majorities. The subject indeed bad been before them for the last ten or twelve years, and the only Bill that reached a second reading was negatived by 169 to 65. The Committee appointed in 1857 reported that it was not a fit subject for legislation; and the introduction of the last Bill on the question was negatived by 138 to 30. He would not object to the first reading, but would give every subsequent stage his most decided opposition. Masters, in their own interests and in the interests of their workpeople, had endeavoured to carry out every possible improvement in this trade.
  Leave given.
  "Bill to place the employment of Women, Young Persons, and Children in Bleaching and Dyeing Works under the regulations of the Factories Acts, ordered to be brought in by Mr. CROOK and Lord ASHLET.
  Bill presented, and read 1°. To be read 2° on Tuesday, 6th March, and to be printed.

CHARITABLE USES.

  LEAVE. FIRST READING.
  MR. HADFIELDsaid, he rose to move for eave to bring in a Bill to amend the law relative to the conveyance of land for charitable uses. This Bill was in substance approved of by the highest authorities and by hon. Members on both sides of the House. It was not for the purpose of enabling persons to devise property by will in weak moments and in their dying hours, but simply to enable conveyances to be taken for various charitable purposes, schools, and places of worship. There were at least 30,000 of such institutions in the country, all of which were affected by the mortmain laws, and some of which in consequence existed upon uncertain title.
  Leave given;
  "Bill to amend the Law relating to the Conveyance of Land for Charitable Uses, ordered to be brought in by Mr. HADFIELD and Mr. MALINS."
  Bill presented, and read 1°. To be read 2° on Wednesday, 15th February, and to be printed.

MARRIAGES (ENGLAND AND IRELAND) BILL.

  LEAVE. FIRST READING.
  MR. MELLOR MR. MELLOR moved for leave to bring in a Bill to amend the Acts relating to marriages in England and Ireland, and extending certain provisions thereof to persons professing with the Society of Friends, called Quakers. The hon. and learned Gentleman said that the object of the Bill was to extend privileges hitherto enjoyed by members of the Society of Friends to persons holding the same views and desirous of being married according to their usage. When the Bill was printed and laid upon the table it would, he thought, be found to be one to which no hon. Member could have any objection.
  Leave given;
  "Bill to amend the Acts relating to Marriages in England and Ireland, and extending certain provisions thereof to Persons professing with the Society of Friends called Quakers, ordered to be brought in by Mr. MELLOR and Mr. BRIGHT."
  Bill presented, and read 1°. To be read 2° on Monday next, and to be printed.

THE JERSEY COMMISSION.

  RETURN MOVED FOR.
  MR. HADFIELDsaid, that not being satisfied with a reply to a question addressed by him to the Home Secretary a night or two since, he rose to move for a return showing the names of the Commissioners, Secretary, and of all other Persons employed on the Jersey Commission, and in what capacity they are employed; of the number of days on which the Commissioners met, distinguishing those days on which they met in Jersey, from those on which they met in London; of the entire expense of the Commission in detail up to the present time
  SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, the Commission was issued while the Administration of the Earl of Derby was in power, and Her Majesty's present advisers had no share in recommending its appointment. He would take it for granted that, as it was issued in consequence of an address from the House, it was issued with sufficient reason; but he submitted that it was not usual to impute dereliction of duty or unnecessary delay, without some proof, or to cast the censure which this return seemed to apply to the Commissioners. When the Miscellaneous Estimates were presented there would be a complete account of the expenses, and that would be the proper time to object to them. He did not see that any advantage would be gained by this return; and therefore, if it were pressed to a division, he should feel it his duty to vote against it.
  MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, the Secretary of State appeared to draw a distinction between the appointment of Commissions by the late and by the present Governments; but it should be remembered that all such appointments were really the acts of the House. It was most important that the House should know what the Commission had done, and he was very much surprised at the opposition offered by the right hon. Baronet.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

PACKET AND TELEGRAPH CONTRACTS.

  APPOINTMENT OF COMMITTEE.
  MR. LAINGsaid, that in the absence of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he wished to move the appointment of the Select Committee on Packet and Telegraphic Contracts. It was his belief that no opposition would be made to the Motion.
  MR. SPOONERsaid, he must object to the appointment of the Committee, in the absence of the hon. Member for Berkshire (Captain Vernon), who had postponed his Motion on this subject, on the understanding that this Motion also would be postponed.
  MR. LAINGexplained, that the hon. and gallant Gentleman's notice related to a substantive Motion; it was not an Amendment; and the hon. and gallant Gentleman had not himself hinted to the Government the slightest desire to have the nomination of the Committee postponed.
  SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, he also must deny that there was any such understanding. The two Motions had no connection with each other. The hon. and gallant Gentleman's Motion referred to the proceedings of the Committee of last year, and this was for the re-appointment of another Committee this Session on the same subject.
  The appointment of the Committee was then agreed to, and the following Members nominated to serve on it;—Sir FRANCIS BARING, Sir STAFFORD NORTHCOTE, Mr. HENRY HERBERT, Mr. CORRY, Mr. SCHOLEFIELD, Sir HENRY WILLOUGHBY, Mr. DUN-LOP, Captain LEICESTER VERNON, Mr. BAXTER, Captain GLADSTONE, Mr. HUBBARD, Mr. ROBERT CRAWFORD, Mr. HOPE, Mr. LAING, Mr. BAZLEY, Sir EDWARD GROGAN, Mr. HOWES, Mr. EDWARD ELLICE, and Colonel GREVILLE.
  House adjourned shortly after a quarter past Seven o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1° Newspapers,
&c.

THE BILLS FOR THE CONSOLIDATION OF THE CRIMINAL LAW.

  EXPLANATION.
  LORD LYNDHURSTsaid, he wished to call the attention of his noble and learned Friend on the woolsack to certain Bills for the improvement of the Criminal Law which his noble and learned Friend had laid on the table a few days ago. He found that those Bills were not confined to the consolidation of the Criminal Law, but that they extended to its amendment. The noble and learned Lord, when he laid those Bills on the table, said he had not read them.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR: Oh, no I said no such thing.
  LORD LYNDHURSTcertainly understood his noble and learned Friend to have said so; but if his noble and learned Friend had read the Bills, then it became of still more consequence that he should call his attention to the subject. He found in looking at one of these Bills, that in one of the sections, the crime of wilfully setting fire to premises was to be punished with seven years' penal servitude; but in a section or two further on, he found that the attempt to set fire to premises—the attempt only—was to be punished with a sentence of fourteen years' penal servitude; and with this apparent inconsistency he thought it his duty to call the attention of his noble and learned Friend to the subject before the Bills were brought forward for a second reading, as he placed every confidence in the accuracy of his noble and learned Friend.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, if his noble and learned Friend had done him the favour, with his usual courtesy, to give him

  565
  notice of this question, he might have been prepared to give him an answer. As it was, the question came on him totally by surprise. But he could assure his noble and learned Friend that he had totally misunderstood what passed on a former occasion if he supposed that he had not read any of the Bills. What he then said was this, that infinite pains had been taken with the preparation of the Bills, which were intended not only to consolidate the statutes as they stood on the statute-book, but moreover tended to assimilate the law of Ireland with that of England. He stated that, he could not pledge himself that he had read every word of all the Bills, but that he had bestowed upon them great labour. He could inform his noble and learned Friend that he had spent hours and hours on the consideration of these Bills with Mr. Greaves, than whom there was not a more able and painstaking lawyer, and with Mr. Pigott, who represented Ireland. It might be that what his noble and learned Friend pointed out was an inconsistency, but that was no objection to the course he had himself suggested when the subject was last before them—that the Bills after being read a second time should be referred to a Select Committee. His noble and learned Friend would then have an opportunity of pointing out any inaccuracies he might have detected.
  LORD LYNDHURSTread the clauses already alluded to, and said he should have thought his noble and learned Friend, who had spent so many hours in drawing the Bills, would have thanked him for pointing out to him an apparent inconsistency which he had discovered on first reading the Bills.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, he was not prepared at that moment to explain what his noble and learned Friend had referred to, nor was it to be expected that he should. If his noble and learned Friend had done him the favour to have informed him that he should call his attention to the subject, he thought that, with the assistance of his learned Friend, Mr. Greaves, he should have been able to show his noble and learned Friend that he was entirely under a mistake.

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

  QUESTION.
  THE EARL OF DERBY: My Lords, I should be very sorry if it were supposed that I am about, for more than a few mo-
  566
  ments, by the question which I am about to put to my noble Friend opposite, to take up your Lordships' time, or delay you from the consideration of the important and interesting question which the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Normanby) is about to bring before you; and it is the less necessary that I should do so because the circumstances to which I am about to call your attention have unhappily attained so great a degree of notoriety and scandal that there is no need for me to enter upon them in any detail. But I am sure that my noble Friend opposite (Earl Granville), will be glad to have the earliest possible opportunity to correct in his place in Parliament what I am satisfied must be a misrepresentation of what is reported to have lately fallen from one of his colleagues, while referring to this subject elsewhere, when a similar question was put to him. I may say at the outset, that I have no feeling whatever in common with those clergymen who are bent on introducing into the ancient, simple, and commonly received forms of public worship of the Church of England novelties that are unpalatable to the great bulk of their congregations, or who persist in forcing on their unwilling parishioners forms of worship which may perhaps not be illegal in themselves, and which, if they were ever in former times sanctioned by the Church, have long since fallen into disuse—forms which they may consider to add to the solemnities of public worship, but which, I am sure, none of them can consider essential in the eyes of Almighty God. I cannot, my Lords, imagine how any right-feeling and right-minded clergyman can persist, for such an object as this, to incur the fearful responsibility of driving from the Church of their fathers,—perhaps to a Dissenting chapel but perhaps worse, driving away from any place of religious worship—a large proportion of those of whose spiritual welfare he, as their pastor, must one day give account. I must also say that I can make great allowance for the feelings of those congregations who, finding themselves debarred by the introduction of these rash novelties in services and forms—be they right or be they wrong is not the question here—I say I can make great allowance for the feelings of those who, finding themselves thus debarred from the church where they have been accustomed to worship, feel themselves aggrieved and irritated. But, whatever may be the course pursued in St. George's-in-the- East and elsewhere, I feel

  567
  sure your Lordships will agree with me that this affords no palliation—I will not say no excuse, but no palliation even—for the scandalous and disgraceful scenes which, Sunday after Sunday, take place in the parish church of St. George's. I have been assured, my Lords, since I gave notice of this question, by two of the clergymen of this church, that whatever may have been the objections of the parishioners to the services on former occasions, there have been, during the last few Sunday evening services, when the most disgraceful rioting has prevailed, no deviation whatever in any one respect from that which is universally practised in our cathedral services—that full choral service which passes unblamed in Westminster and St. Paul's. Now, my Lords, I go further than I have yet gone, and I say I do not think the full choral service as practised in our cathedrals is fitted for our ordinary parochial services; and if the chants and anthems which are practised in our cathedrals were introduced into every parish church I should prefer to attend in some other place where the services were conducted in a simpler and what appears to me in a more devotional form. But I know that, on the other hand, to some persons the services performed in this manner are eminently attractive, and that they are regarded by them as helps to devotion. I have further been informed that in this parish of St. George's the service was introduced at the desire of a considerable number of the parishioners; that they have been conducted for fifteen years without the slightest remonstrance, until unfortunately in the month of May last, a difference of opinion arose—of the merits of which I wish to say nothing—with respect to the introduction of a clergyman into the parish as a lecturer, who held opinions belonging to a very different section of the Church from that to which the rector belonged. From that time the parish has been in continuous conflict. I should have thought myself, that in a parish church, where there are two services conducted according to the usual form, and the third only is conducted according to the full choral or cathedral service, there was ample room for a compromise if the parties could be brought to join in a course so desirable. But whether the services be or be not as I have described them, or whether these forms be more or less offensive to the congregation, I say again, that the proceedings which have lately
  568
  taken place reflect the utmost disgrace on all concerned in them. Your Lordships have all seen in the daily papers accounts of the disgraceful riots which take place there Sunday after Sunday—how the service of God is interrupted by whistling, by singing, by banging of doors, by loud coughing, by catcalls, by throwing hassocks and other articles of church furniture at the altar, by the singing of songs and by other scandalous proceedings, by which the congregation seek to testify their objection to the religious forms and ceremonies observed in the worship. But, my Lords, to say for a single moment that this objection is any palliation for these disgraceful proceedings, or that they are in the slightest degree connected with religious feeling, is to express what to me appears little short of blasphemy. It is, perhaps, true that these parties are encouraged by others who themselves shrink from taking a prominent part in the riots; but it is certain that the congregations for the last few Sundays have for the most part been composed of a mob of the lowest character, who have no reverence for a place of worship, or for the Being who is adored there; who are actuated by a pure love of mischief, and who carry out their wishes in the most disgraceful manner. I need not enter further into a description of those scenes, as your Lordships have seen the accounts of them that have been published in the newspapers. I have only to add further that one of the clergymen who performed the services, and with whom I had no previous acquaintance, called on me and stated that, in addition to the statements which had been given in the newspapers on Monday morning, he had himself been assaulted and severely struck; and that during the performance of the services he was struck in the face with peas discharged from peashooters from different parts of the church. I am certain—at least I am all but certain—that my noble Friend will not say that these riots cannot be put down; I think he will not say—as must have been an erroneous report of what was said elsewhere—that these proceedings are not to be characterized as "outrages"—that the Secretary of State has done all that was in his power to put down these riots; that he has even gone farther than some persons thought he ought to go, and that he is not disposed to take any ulterior steps in the matter; I shall not be told that Sir Richard Mayne had done all he could to preserve order,

  569
  and I shall not be told, in conclusion, that my noble Friend regrets that the proceedings of the clergy connected with the church have led to this unhappy state of things. That was said to he the substance of an answer given to a question on the same subject "elsewhere." I think we may be sure that that answer will not be given here. My Lords, my Question is whether the Government have taken into their serious consideration the scandalous outrages that have taken place in the church of St. George's-in-the-East. Next, I wish to know if they have inquired into the state of the law, and have ascertained whether the law is sufficient as it stands to put an end to scenes so disgraceful? If the law is sufficient to put an end to them I am sure my noble Friend will not dispute that it is the duty of the Executive Government to put that law in force. If, on the one hand, their inquiries satisfy them that there is no power of restraining a clergyman from a mode of conducting the service offensive to the parishioners; or if, on the other hand, the law is not sufficiently powerful to prevent or control an outburst of popular feeling such as has been manifested in the parish in question, then I submit it is the duty of the Government to consider in what manner the law can be strengthened so as to give the Executive sufficient power to deal with such cases. But, if those proceedings are allowed to go on with impunity, they may be expected to become more scandalous day after day. Magistrates before whom offenders are brought are compelled, in the present state of the law, to discharge them, and the police apparently take no adequate part in the preservation of order, though they would undoubtedly act if such scenes occurred in a theatre, in a Mormon chapel, or in Hyde Park. I do not understand that the police have not the power to act in such cases; and if they have the power, I want to know why they have not been ordered to take such steps as appeared necessary to prevent a recurrence of such scandalous outrages. I submit it is the duty of the Government to interpose their authority with the view to put an end to these disgraceful brawls; and I hope my noble Friends will state on their part that they arc prepared to exercise their authority for that purpose, or, if that power he unequal to the emergency, that they are prepared to invoke the assistance and sanction of Parliament in devising some adequate remedy. The noble Earl then put the Question of which he had
  570
  given notice, What course Her Majesty's Government intend to adopt with respect to the proceedings in the Church of St. George's-in-the-East?
  EARL GRANVILLE: My Lords, I agree in great part with the observations made by the noble Earl, especially as to the extreme indiscretion of introducing novel ceremonials into the mode of conducting Divine worship in parochial churches. Those observations appear to me so pertinent that I have great hope that the manner in which he has put the matter to your Lordships will have the proper effect on the few clergymen to whom they apply. I quite concur with the noble Earl as to the great scandal attaching to the proceedings which have taken place in the church of St. George's-in-the-East. There is no doubt that the opposition to these novelties originated with parishioners; but many of the persons who go there for the purpose of making a disturbance do not reside in the parish, but would seem, nevertheless, to a certain degree, to be encouraged by the sympathy of the parishioners. With regard to the police, it is extremely difficult to define their duty under such circumstances, not only in a legal point of view, but as to the mode in which they should discharge it. The information I have is, that they have attended at the church several weeks running in order to keep the peace, and strict injunctions were issued to them to prevent any disturbance, and where they could not interfere they were to take down the names of persons, and so on. But the result is not satisfactory. When the disturbances consisted of shuffling of feet, slamming of doors, and making various other noises, it was impossible for the police to act. I should be sorry to take upon myself to lay down the exact state of the law. On the last two Sundays the disturbances have been of a different character, and the police were called upon to interfere; but when they went to the door the churchwarden told them it was not necessary for them to enter. Your Lordships will have seen from the detailed reports in the newspapers that persons implicated in the disturbances on the evening of Sunday last have been discharged from the want of tangible evidence. The magistrate (Mr. Yardley) on that occasion laid down the law in a very clear and lucid manner, and said if the authorities could point out the persons who had created a disturbance he could deal with them, and would punish them most severely. The

  571
  police will have, as they hitherto have had, orders to give every assistance in their power to prevent a repetition of the disturbances, and, failing in that, to bring the offenders before a magistrate.
  THE EARL OF DERBY: The noble Earl has not stated whether in the opinion of Her Majesty's Government the state of the law is sufficient to effectually repress such disturbances.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, according to the law laid down by the magistrate yesterday, if the authorities could point out the offender the law was sufficient to punish him.
  LORD BROUGHAM: The real difficulty is, that what has taken place in this church does not amount to a breach of the peace. Certain cries were uttered that were most reprehensible and disgusting, undoubtedly; these tended to interrupt the service, and are an ecclesiastical offence—that is to say, "brawling"—and may be visited with ecclesiastical censure. But that is not enough—there has been something more than these cries and brawlings in the church. My noble Friend (the Earl of Derby) has stated that a distinct breach of the peace has been committed and a clergyman been assaulted. There is another difficulty. The persons who promote these disturbances have selected boys and children, and made them their tools in creating a noise, and the magistrate has a difficulty in visiting those children who have not committed an assault or riot with the necessary punishment. We are told by my noble Friend opposite (Earl Granville) that the police, when they offered to enter the church, were informed by the churchwarden that their presence was unnecessary. I strongly recommend that, without asking the opinion of the churchwarden, and without asking his leave—for he has no right to refuse entrance—the police should enter the church, take their position in different parts of it, and if there were riots at once interfere. They might, moreover, discover who were the real agitators who made the children their tools; for although the churchwarden might not be able to detect the instigators of the disorders, the more practised eye of the policeman will probably be more successful. I will only repeat what my noble Friend has said so much better than I said yesterday, as to the utter abhorrence and disgust which I feel with regard to these proceedings. A great outrage has been committed in this church. There may be a difference of
  572
  opinion, as my noble Friend described it, as to the conduct of the clergyman. He may have been well advised, or he may have been ill-advised, in the manner in which the service is performed. We have no right to visit with our censure conscientious differences of opinion from ourselves, whether those differences relate to matters of doctrine, or to mere matters of discipline, or to mere ceremonials. Although I may hold an opinion upon the subject myself I have no right to say that my brother is wrong who thinks that the performance of Divine service should he accompanied by certain changes of posture, by certain genuflections, or by certain turnings towards the altar. That may, for aught I know, be a ground for conscientious differences of opinion between one clergyman and another, or between a clergyman and his parishioners; but of this I am perfectly clear, that those differences of opinion, whether as to dogma or discipline, or mere ceremonial, are not to be decided by a mob—perhaps an infuriated mob—administering no law, but creating riots and disorders simply because they favour one party rather than the other. I hope and trust that we shall speedily see an end put to these proceedings, and if it should be found that there is a difficulty in obtaining the effectual assistance of the police that my right rev. Friend opposite (the Bishop of London) will see the propriety of shutting up the church of St. George's altogether—at least, for a time.
  THE BISHOP OF LONDON: The noble and learned Lord has stated that unless there be a breach of the peace the law has no power in this case. I think your Lordships ought not to adopt that view of the matter, because there are undoubtedly two distinct laws which have been violated here, and according to which the offenders may be punished. One of these is the statute of the 1 William & Mary, cap. 18, sec. 18, whereby a person disturbing any minister in the discharge of his duty in a church may be taken before the nearest justice of the peace, to whom he must produce sureties of £50 that he will stand his trial before the next quarter sessions. The other law is that of the I Queen Mary, cap. 3, sec. 2 and 6, whereby a person so interrupting the service may immediately be taken before the nearest magistrate, and I believe the penalty which may be inflicted in that case is three months' imprisonment. There are these plain modes of dealing with such offenders, besides the

  573
  one which the noble and learned Lord has pointed out, of their being prosecuted in the Ecclesiastical Court for brawling. But the difficulty in this case has not arisen from the want of law, but from the impossibility as it would appear—though I cannot understand where the impossibility lies—in distinctly identifying the offenders. I was surprised to hear the noble and learned Lord state that the churchwarden requested the police not to enter the church. I presume, if he did so in this instance, that it was simply for the reason that he himself had captured several offenders whom he handed over to the police at the door of the church to be taken before the magistrate next morning. But when they came before the magistrate there was no evidence that they were the particular offenders who ought to have been arrested. I do earnestly trust, then, that steps will be taken to place somewhere such persons as will be able to see who are the real offenders, and bring them to justice under the existing law, when, I feel confident, the magistrates will not hesitate to make a very severe example of them. My noble and learned Friend has requested me, in the event of other measures failing, at once to close the church. Your Lordships are aware that that is a course which has already been taken by me, and I was greatly in hopes that the period for reflection which the closing of the church gave to all parties would have resulted in a cessation of those disgraceful proceedings. I have no hesitation in expressing my belief that if both parties had been willing at that time to place the matter in my hands that would have been the result. I do not desire to magnify my office; but I do not even now despair, and if the clergy of that church will do—what I feel confident I would do, if I were in their place, request me, their superior officer, to take the whole matter into my hands, and declare that they are willing to abide by my decision with regard to what ought to be the services in that church, I believe that we could easily put an end to these distressing scenes.

RUMOURED ANNEXATION OF SAVOY TO FRANCE.

  ADDRESS MOVED.
  THE MARQUESS OF NORMANBY(who was very indistinctly heard), in rising to move the Address of which he had given notice respecting the supposed project for the transference of Savoy and Nice from Sar-
  574
  dinia to France, said that their Lordships would hardly be surprised that he should revert so soon to the very important subject which he brought under their consideration on a former evening. In order to account for his so doing he must, in the first place, recur to the emphatic statement of the noble Earl opposite (Earl Granville), that Her Majesty's Government had conveyed to the Government of France in firm but temperate language the objections which they entertained to the plan which was supposed to be under consideration for the annexation of Savoy and Nice to the French empire. But with a view clearly to ascertain the actual position of the affair it was important that we should be informed when this declaration had been conveyed, and whether anything had occurred since to mitigate the satisfaction which Her Majesty's Government had derived from the first reception of their objections, He was surprised, however, to find the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs in "another place" had given a somewhat confused account as to the date of this action of the British Government. Lord John Russell was reported to have said the other day,—
  "In the beginning of July, in consequence of a despatch from Mr. Harris, the British Minister in Switzerland, Count Walewski was asked by Lord Cowley whether there was any truth in the rumour that there was a project on foot for the annexation of Savoy to the empire of France. Some conversation passed between them, and Count Walewski's remarks were not explicit on the subject on which Lord Cowley asked for information. Some time after this Count Walewski assured the Government that there was no intention on the part of the Emperor of the French to propose the annexation in question. On the former occasion Lord Cowley stated that such a proposal would he viewed with disapprobation by Her Majesty's Government, and the language he held was approved by Her Majesty's Government. On the second occasion Her Majesty's Government directed a despatch to the British Ambassador in Paris, expressing the satisfaction with which Her Majesty's Government had received the assurance that no such project was in contemplation."
  Your Lordships will perceive that allusion here is made to two distinct communications with the French Government. The first not being satisfactory as not being explicit. In another report the noble Lord is stated to have said, "Count Walewski not being satisfactory on the point of territorial limits." The two communications appeared both to have taken place in the month of July, but the second sometime after the first. In reading this statement, he (the Marquess of Normanby) was impressed by the belief that he had heard something of the same

  575
  kind before. He did not, however, pursue the inquiry further until he saw it stated in a semi-official French print that Lord John Russell must have been inaccurate as to the time when and the circumstances under which such an assurance was given. He therefore turned to the invaluable pages of Hansard, and found that Lord John Russell, after reading a telegram on the 12th of July announcing the peace, said—
  "I may state further, because there has been a rumour for some weeks past that whenever peace came to be signed, and Lombardy should be ceded to Sardinia, France would ask, as compensation for her expenses in the war, to have Savoy ceded to her. That I am happy to be able to inform the House that the Emperor of the French has made no demand of that kind, and that there is every reason to suppose that he does not intend to make any addition whatever to the territory of France. This is most gratifying, because any addition to the territory of France, however insignificant, following on the war, could not fail to rouse the suspicions and jealousies of Europe."—[3 Hansard, cliv. 1052.]
  Now this is so far inconsistent with the more recent statement that it appears both communications must have taken place before the 12th of July, as the noble Lord could not on that day have alluded to the first as "gratifying," which he has since then termed not sufficiently explicit to be satisfactory. Of course every Minister was liable to mistakes in points of detail, but this quotation became of importance in the face of the statement in the French semiofficial newspaper, that Lord John Russell was in error as to the time when this assurance was given and the circumstances attending it. He (the Marquess of Normanby) did not wish to press this further, except to suggest that, believing thoroughly the assurance of his noble Friend opposite (Earl Granville), he thought it important for their Lordships to join him in co-operating with the Government in-this matter in the line which they had traced out. Wishing to carry their Lordships with him as much as possible in his present Motion, he had avoided introducing into it, and would endeavour to avoid the mention, of anything which might cast blame upon the Government. There were people, he knew, who, now that this question had become a matter of general conversation and discussion throughout Europe, wished that the statement made last July should he repeated; there might be reasons why the Government should decline to make any such statement; but, at any rate, the question had assumed a much more serious shape since last July. In alluding
  576
  to what appeared in the newspapers respecting it, it was necessary to remind their Lordships of the system on which the present French Government was carried with reference to the press. On the one hand, he felt quite sure that upon such a subject as this the publication of any thing which might by possibility displease the Emperor was discouraged; and they also knew that not one word which was absolutely displeasing to His Majesty was allowed to appear at all. It was not surprising, therefore, if some serious interpretation were put upon the fact that during the last few days the Government of Piedmont had been directly lectured in the French press for daring to allow their local officers to interfere in any matter with what the writer was pleased to call "the popular demonstrations in Savoy." "We" regard this conduct, it was said, as intolerable. Now, who was meant by the "we" here employed? Did not everybody know that in that plurality the head of the Government in France must be included? Would anybody else dare to speak in his august name? Remembering this, he (the Marquess of Normanby) owned that he was not much consoled by what had been put forward by the publishing secretary of the French Government, M. Grandguillot. In an article published in the Constitutionnel this gentleman stated that this question of annexation arose from the development of public opinion, founded on the inexorable logic of facts. Now, when the development of public opinion was introduced in connection with the ruler of 600,000 or 700,000 armed men, it was sufficiently formidable. In the same way the logic of facts became formidable too, and not the less so because it was perfectly unintelligible. So many contradictions were to be met with at every stage of this question that he was almost afraid to repeat what every one assured him was beyond the possibility of doubt. Nobody upon the Continent would believe that there was no treaty, no engagement, no compact between the Emperor of the French and the person acting on behalf of the King of Sardinia; and yet he (the Marquess of Normanby) owned that he could not put implicit faith in that general belief, because he found the following in a letter written before the commencement of the war by the very acute diplomatist who represented this country in Paris. Writing to the Earl of Malmesbury on the 18th of March, Lord Cowley says—

  577
  "The impression left upon my mind after a lengthened conversation is, that the Emperor is desirous of maintaining peace; that His Majesty is not ready for war, which is, perhaps, the best proof of his pacific intentions; that he has no other engagement with Sardinia than to go to her assistance if she is attacked by Austria; that he does not contemplate any modifications of the treaties of 1815."
  Now, as this was a statement made by the Emperor to Lord Cowley, far be it from him (the Marquess of Normanby) to contradict anything His Majesty had said. He would suggest, however, that the Emperor would give much more satisfaction to his faithful Ally on this side of the water if he would state positively, through one of those channels of which the French Government was wont to avail itself, that neither before nor since the war had there been any engagements of the kind referred to. In considering the chances of success in effecting this annexation, much, of course, depended upon the actual state of public opinion throughout Savoy and Nice at this moment. He had taken pains to arrive at some conclusion on this point, but owned that he had been unable to do so satisfactorily to himself. At the same time there were some facts that were obvious to everybody. For instance, a great change had occurred since 1848 in the feelings of the people of Savoy towards the King of Sardinia. At that time any proposal to sever their allegiance met with the spontaneous resistance of a united people. They were frugal in their habits; they were devoted to an ancient dynasty; they were very observant of all their religious duties, and the precepts of Christianity with them, as much as with any other people in the world, were the rule of their daily lives. But a great change had since occurred there. In the first place, the excessive taxation imposed upon a poor though frugal people had produced much discontent; then, a peasantry attached beyond all others to their birthplace had been transported across the Alps to fight in a war in which they had no interest; the gentry had been drawn away from those local duties which they were in the habit of discharging in perfect agreement and concord with the peasantry to listen to debates in a language which they did not understand. These were practical grievances which might naturally have modified the loyalty existing up to the time he had mentioned, and if any demonstrations had occurred in favour of annexation with France during the municipal elections at Chambery or on any
  578
  other occasion, those who took part in them were probably inclined to encounter unknown and therefore unfelt evils, rather than endure the positive grievances of which they now complained. That this was so might be inferred from the circumstance that no adverse demonstration had been noticed, and from the manner in which the municipal elections at Chambery had been conducted, and commented upon by the semi-official French press. There had appeared in the newspapers a letter from a remarkable person, a member of the Sardinian Chambers (the Marquess Costa and Beauregard), who was well acquainted with the people of Savoy, well known as one of the leaders of what was called the Conservative party, and most decidedly opposed to the war. This gentleman stated in answer to the imputation—for so he called it—that he had been to France as part of a deputation in favour of the annexation of Savoy to that country, that he felt for the grievances which his country had to complain of against the present Government of Piedmont, but that he firmly maintained the allegiance which his fathers had ever owed to the King of Sardinia. That also was the sentiment of the great majority of the Conservative party of Savoy; and he (the Marquess of Normanby) hoped that, upon every account, the King of Sardinia would adhere with fidelity to those who were so devoted to him and his House, that he would extend to them that justice which he himself expected from the Emperor of the French, and that in the case of any country with which he might be temporarily connected, the popular vote would be regarded as the expression of the popular will, and that he would take that there, as in Savoy, it should be perfectly free and unbiassed, independent of any attempt at foreign control, including his own. This question was greatly complicated by the present unsettled state of all the other communities of Italy; and in a strategical point of view the annexation of Savoy to France would be most objectionable even for the safety of Sardinia itself. Could it be possible in such an event for a King of Sardinia, within forty miles of the French frontier, open and undefended, to preserve himself in Turin? He would have at once to transfer his capital to Milan; and their Lordships would at once see that it would not be for his advantage to commence his defence on what had been hitherto called the Austrian side of the Ticino. But where, except in

  579
  Piedmont, could the King of Sardinia look for that loyal attachment which would he his best support against foreign attack. Already, even in Milan, things were in a most alarming state. Robberies, accompanied by assassination, were nightly committed there; the garrison had been under arms and consigned to their barracks on two or three occasions, and exactly the same annoyances which used to be applied by the ladies of Milan to the Austrian officers were now applied to the Piedmontese officers, and that dissatisfaction on the part of Lombardy with the union of the Provinces was fast assuming the proportions it acquired in 1848. What was the cause of this? The cause was that the people had experienced no benefit from their annexation, but, on the contrary, were greatly aggrieved by the excessive taxation, which was 15 per cent more than during the Austrian rule. The French newspapers had very much alluded to what they represented to be the grateful feeling of the people of Savoy to France; but what happened in 1796, after four years of French occupation? There had then as now been an alliance between France and Sardinia against Austria. General Bonaparte, having flattered Sardinia into making common cause with him, returned to France and left the King to his fate; what that fate was to be, the following proclamation by the French Genera] at Turin would show:—
  "The French Government, to facilitate peace and the triumph of the great army, was obliged provisionally to consider Kings as the representatives of their subjects. This supposition was necessary to carry on negotiations, but is now evidently circumscribed and limited. To protect the feeble is one mode of annihilating them. The alliance of the King of Sardinia with the French Republic was, in fact, the moral abdication of her sovereignty."
  Immediately afterwards the citadal of Turin was seized and occupied by French troops, and in a few months the ancient head of the house of Savoy sought refuge in the Island of Sardinia, where he was protected by an English fleet. The allegation of the old sympathies of Savoy for France was most absurd; but with respect to Nice there was not even one solitary pretence for this rumoured act of intended spoliation. He would not at that moment stop to inquire into the importance to cither country of the noble harbour of Villafranca, one of the finest in the Mediterranean, He was not one of those who were not anxious to do complete
  580
  justice to the Emperor of the French. He was anxious that we should continue on the best possible terms with France. Nothing could be further from his mind than a desire to provoke a difference of any kind; but when questions were raised which directly affected the balance of power in Europe, we ought to understand to what extent the parties to the treaties which regulated the present settlement of Europe would agree to any modification of them. Even at the time of the revolution in France, when the popular impulse was so great, the French Government declared that, however much they disapproved the treaties of 1815, they were determined to adopt them as accomplished facts, not to be altered without the common consent of all the Powers. If such was the feeling in France in 1848, we had some reason to hope that at least an equal regard for the obligation of treaties would be evinced by one whom he should be glad to call our intimate and loyal Ally. He might be permitted, in conclusion, to say a word on the question of nationality. It behoved every settled Government in Europe to withhold its assent from the new and dangerous doctrine of the right of a people, on the ground of nationality, to transfer their allegiance from one Sovereign to another. He hoped, at all events, that so elastic a doctrine—a doctrine which threatened the security of all Governments—would receive no encouragement from their Lordships, or from those intrusted with the administration of our public affairs. Having, he trusted, clearly shown that his object was not to make an attack upon the Government, but rather to afford them an opportunity of stating those views upon the subject of the annexation of Savoy which he was bound to say they had very early if not very forcibly expressed, and leaving the matter to be dealt with by their Lordships in whatever manner they might deem consistent with their duty, he begged to move that an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty,
  "To represent to Her Majesty that this House has been informed that Her Majesty's Government has made known to the Government of Franco the Objections entertained by Her Majesty's Government to the Annexation of Savoy and Nice, which has been reported to be in contemplation.
  "To thank Her Majesty for having conveyed that Opinion to the Government of France, and to pray that Her Majesty will be graciously pleased to direct Her Government to use their best Endeavours to avert the Transfer of the above named territories to the French Empire."
  EARL GRANVILLE: My Lords, the noble Marquess at the commencement of his speech seemed to complain of the answer which I gave to his question last week on the subject of Savoy. That answer was perfectly correct, and, although my noble Friend the Secretary for Foreign Affairs gave some further explanations on a subsequent occasion in the other House, his statement was not at variance with, though going rather beyond, the answer which I returned in the first instance to the noble Marquess. You are aware from what has appeared in the printed despatches, that during the Administration of the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Derby) some intelligence had been received respecting a treaty between France and Sardinia which contained a clause affecting Savoy. Lord Cowley was requested by the Earl of Malmesbury to ascertain whether or not the Report which had reached our Government was accurate, and he was assured by Count Walewski that no treaty between France and Sardinia was in existence, though it might be considered necessary to make an offensive and defensive one. Count Walewski made no allusion to the question of territorial aggrandizement, and the subject was dropped. I stated last week the steps which the present Government had taken on this subject last year, and may state to you Lordships that they have continued making friendly communications to the Governments of France and Sardinia with respect to the Report of a proposed annexation of Savoy to the French Empire. We have been told by the Imperial Government that there is no question at present of the annexation of Savoy; that one of a great many points discussed before the war was the annexation of Savoy, under certain contingencies; but those contingencies not having occurred, there is at this moment no question of annexation. The French Government adds, at the same time, that, in the event of Sardinia, with the addition of Lombardy and other provinces, becoming a powerful Italian State, they will feel themselves at liberty to consider for their own security, what conditions they should attach to the sanction they might give to such an arrangement. From Turin the answer we have received is, that there is no engagement whatever between France and Sardinia respecting the annexation of Savoy; that it is not the intention of the King of Sardinia to yield, sell, or exchange Savoy; that if the Savoyards have griev-
  582
  ances to allege, they possess the constitutional right of petitioning the Sardinian Parliament; that their petitions will be respectfully considered, and their just complaints will be removed by appropriate legislative measures sanctioned by the Crown. I imagine every one of your Lordships must admit that it is undoubtedly the duty of the Government of this country, on all judicious occasions, to speak to other Governments in a perfectly open manner upon all subjects which concern its interests. Even if this were not so, there arc at this moment circumstances arising from the coincidence of our policy upon the Italian question, and from the prospect which now opens of extending the commercial intercourse between this country and France, under the more liberal commercial policy now inaugurated by the Emperor of the French, which would greatly facilitate any friendly representations we might make to either of the parties on this subject. What would render them still more easy in regard to this question of Savoy is, that England, so far as she is directly concerned, has no interest in the matter of the annexation, seeing that it does not make any great difference to this country, as England, whether or not France acquires upon her southern frontier territory giving her certain strategical advantages. But indirectly she has, with all other Powers, an interest in the question; and what is of paramount interest to England is the interests of Europe as a whole. In this sense it is her interest to do everything she can to promote peace, to maintain the balance of power, and to prevent the commission of acts by any nation, particularly by any of the great Powers, which may create alarm and shake the public confidence in the maintenance of peace. Therefore I think it would have been most unfriendly of Her Majesty's Government if they had not laid before that of France all the objections which, in an European sense, would arise to the aggrandisement of the French territory which was involved in the supposed scheme. It is hardly necessary to dwell upon those objections to your Lordships. No doubt France, occupying so magnificent a geographical position as she does, and having so gallant a people, who have so frequently and so recently shown in so conspicuous a manner how able they are to defend themselves upon all occasions, cannot pretend to be jealous of a country like Piedmont,

  583
  even though her power should be increased by an accession of territory and subjects in Italy. On the other hand, there can be no question that the extension of the frontier of France to the Alps would very much alter the arrangements for the preservation of the balance of European power. If France goes to the Alps now there is no good reason why she should not at a subsequent period go to the Rhine. Were this not so, however, it is clear that the annexation of Savoy to France would give rise to great European difficulty. The arguments of the noble Marquess were perfectly consistent upon this point, and no doubt therefore any such attempt would excite in the mind of Europe generally deep interest, and well-grounded alarm. The enemies of the Emperor of the French at the commencement of the late war endeavoured to make it appear that he had undertaken that war from motives of personal ambition and territorial aggrandisement; and I have no doubt your Lordships well remember the manner in which the Emperor disclaimed the imputation. Among the most noble words ever uttered by a great Sovereign at the head of a victorious army were those used by the Emperor of the French at Milan, when he told the Italians that his and their enemies had endeavoured to spread the belief, that he had undertaken the war for the aggrandizement of France and not for their advantage; that, although there might be some persons who were ignorant of the public opinion of Europe, he was not one of them, and that moral influence was of more advantage to a great nation than were barren conquests, and he declared that any alteration of the territorial arrangements of France as settled by the Treaty of Vienna, would be dangerous to the peace of Europe. These were noble words; and for the Emperor now to place it in the power of those enemies, by any act of his to represent his policy as contrary to that declaration would obviously he most injurious to his reputation, and most prejudicial to his interests. I will not trouble your Lordships with any reference to what the noble Marquess has said about the duty of the British Government to make friendly representations to the Government of France on this subject, because what they have done is a sufficient confirmation. In our communications with the French Government we have gone into the question more fully than it is necessary to discuss it to your Lordships, and we have done so in the confidence that our
  584
  observations would be received with a feeling as friendly as that by which they were dictated. I beg your Lordships clearly to understand that our policy is not that of nationalities, alluded to by the noble Marquess, nor is it our policy to separate ourselves from other European Powers. Upon the Italian question we are at this moment in direct and friendly communication with France, Sardinia, and Austria, and we shall be happy to communicate with any other nations who feel an interest in the settlement of that question as affecting either Italy or Europe. The policy of the British Government is not to advocate or insist upon any particular mode of carving out Italy; we do not say that the central Provinces must be joined to Sardinia; we do not assert that there may not be a central Italian kingdom. If the great majority of the people of Tuscany are in favour of the Grand Dukes, let them show and assert their opinions, and it will not be for England to object to the restoration of their old sovereigns. Our simple policy—that which we have been urging upon other Powers, and in regard to which we have been met very cordially by France, and as cordially as we could expect by Austria—is to avoid any armed interference in the affairs of the Peninsula, and to secure that the Italians shall be left to themselves to judge what is good for themselves, and in what mode their ideas of liberty and independence can best be carried out. This Motion itself has been framed in very courteous terms, and, as stated by the noble Marquess, is intended to co-operate with and strengthen Her Majesty's Government. I am of opinion that it would not have that effect. Your Lordships are perfectly well aware that at this moment the enemies to the present commercial policy of France are trying to raise a cry that the religion and commerce of that country are being sacrificed to English interests, and they would probably make use of the agreeing to such an Address as this as a means of exciting an anti-English feeling, in order to strengthen them in their opposition; and under these circumstances I do not think that it would assist Her Majesty's Government that the Motion made by the noble Marquis, who has to-night spoken of the Emperor with great respect, but who at the same time holds very peculiar and very strong opinions upon continental politics, should be forced upon them; especially when they declare their intention upon all suitable occasions to give their

  585
  advice and exert their influence to prevent that which the noble Marquess, in common with all your Lordships, deprecates. I quite acquit the noble Marquess of having intended that the Government or your Lordships should pledge themselves to war or eventualities of any description in resisting the alleged scheme. But, even in its more limited sense, inasmuch as the result would surely he to cause misrepresentation in France as to their intentions, I think the Motion would rather weaken than strengthen the Government, and therefore I hope that the noble Marquess will not think it necessary to press it to a division.
  EARL GREY: My Lords, I think that the House is much obliged to the noble Marquess for bringing this subject forward. It seems to me to be impossible to overestimate its importance, and I confess that I should have heard with great pleasure a different conclusion to the speech of my noble Friend who has just sat down. I should like to have heard him state that Her Majesty's Government would agree to the Address proposed. The statement which he has just made affords the clearest proof of the necessity for this Motion; because I think your Lordships will agree with me that it is difficult to conceive anything more alarming than what has been communicated to us by my noble Friend. Nothing can well be more unsatisfactory than that which he describes to have been the language of the French Government to our own on this subject, coupled with that which has been used in the semiofficial newspapers of France. It is, indeed, difficult to conceive, when we consider that language, that the scheme of the annexation of Savoy to France has not gone further than we, till lately, have believed. That annexation would be so pregnant with evil to this country and to Europe that it becomes Her Majesty's Government to use their best endeavours to avert it. I quite agree with my noble Friend that, as far as we are at present informed of the facts, no man in this House can wish that war should be resorted to to prevent such an arrangement from being effected; if unhappily it should have been agreed upon by the two parties most directly interested in it. But there is a great deal short of war which may be done by a nation to prevent the adoption of measures which are injurious to its interests and to those of the world; and I can conceive no case which calls for more energetic remonstrance on the part of Her Majesty's Government than the annexation which is
  586
  supposed to be in contemplation. I do not pretend to say that the annexation of Savoy to France would materially alter the balance of power in Europe. Whatever may be the obvious objections to this extension of the frontiers of France, still, when we look at what the power of that great empire is at present, I cannot think that the addition of Savoy of itself would throw so great an additional weight into the scale as to be of any very serious importance. Nor do I believe that the honour of this country is involved in preventing the arrangement if the two parties more immediately interested should agree to it. But, although it may not in its direct consequences be so injurious as to induce this country to resist it by an appeal to force, still I think, if we look at the subject closely, we shall be convinced that few events would be more injurious both to this country and to Europe than the proposed annexation; as well from its indirect consequences as from the principle which it would tend to establish if it were to be carried into effect on the grounds that have been put forward in support of it. My Lords, in considering this question we cannot lose sight of the reasons that have been urged in its favour by the journals in France, which have an importance that does not usually belong to newspapers, owing to the countenance they receive from the Imperial Government of France. Now, what are those reasons? My noble Friend has already referred to that most extraordinary article which appeared in the Patrie a few days ago, and which I venture to say must have astounded every one of your Lordships who read it. That article states that two measures cannot be applied to Savoy and to Italy; and that it is intolerable that the Government of Sardinia should interfere with the manifestation of the wishes of the Savoyards. I think that every one of your Lordships concurs in the principle that no nation ought to he compelled by foreign force to submit to a Government to which it is averse. The passage in the Queen's Speech, in which that principle was enunciated with regard to Italy, received, I believe, the unanimous approval of your Lordships. But, my Lords, it would indeed be to push that principle to a new and somewhat dangerous length if it is to be assumed, not only that a nation which is de facto in the enjoyment of self-government is not to be coerced by the arms of a foreign Power to change its Government, hut that you are to go beyond

  587
  that plain and simple rule, and to say that even where a settled and long-established Government exists—where a people are living contentedly and peaceably under the rulers who have for centuries reigned over them, a few agitators are to be permitted to declare that the opinion of the country is the other way; that it wishes to shake off the authority to which it is by law subject; and that it is intolerable in the Government to adopt any means of counteracting the efforts of those who seek to subvert it. Why, if this rule of international right and wrong is to be recognized, we must be supposed to have acted most unwarrantably in the year 1848, when we would not suffer certain persons to put the question to the people of Ireland whether or not that country should continue to form a part of the British Empire. Is it to be held as an indication that the people of Savoy are hostile to the existing rule, that a few individuals get up demonstrations against the Government; and is it to be maintained that the Government, instead of putting these persons down by the strong hand, must allow them to have their own way, and then have the question of the continuance of the existing authority submitted to the vote? I venture to say, if that principle is to be established, that no Government in Europe is safe for a day. Apply that principle to France itself? How would the present Emperor receive the proposal that it should be again submitted to the universal vote of the people of France whether they would have an Empire, a Red Republic, or an Orleanist, or a Legitimist dynasty? I am sure that anybody putting forward such a proposal against the settled Government in France would meet with very prompt repression. Further, we are told that the Alps are the natural boundary of France, and that the Savoyards are united to the French people by a community of language. Do these pleas alter the case or diminish the danger? My Lords, we cannot help seeing whither such principles as those lead. Do not the majority of the people of Belgium speak French as well as the inhabitants of Savoy? If such grounds as these are to be assigned for the desire of unjust territorial acquisition on the part of France, what security has Europe that other aggressions of the same kind may not be attempted? It appears to me, therefore, that the proposal for joining Savoy to France, under present circumstances, is one which this country has a right to view with the greatest apprehension
  588
  and alarm, and I certainly should have hoped that this Mouse might be induced to agree, without a division, to the Address which the noble Marquess has moved. I am the last person to suggest that the Motion should be pressed contrary to the desire of Her Majesty's Government. I am persuaded that if it were so pressed, even though it were carried, it would do more harm than good; and for this simple reason—that it would make it appear that there exists a difference of opinion in your Lordships' House, when I believe no such difference really exists. I believe we are all united in condemning and reprobating the scheme which is supposed to be in agitation. If, therefore, we were to come to a division on the question—whichever way it ended—it would make it appear that a very considerable number of your Lordships dissented from what I think is our unanimous opinion. But it would be a very different matter if Her Majesty's Government could be induced to concur in this Motion. I cannot help feeling that at this moment a unanimous expression of the sentiments of this House would have great influence on the opinion of France and of the world. Powerful as France may be, I do not believe that she would despise such a manifestation of opinion, backed as it would be by the views of every other country in Europe. I would therefore earnestly entreat my noble Friend who spoke last (Earl Granville) seriously to consider this subject. I would especially ask him what motive he can have for resisting this Motion. My noble Friend who brought it forward stated most distinctly that he did so without in any way implying the most distant censure on Her Majesty's Government. On the contrary, his first words were those of thanks to the Government for the course which they have taken. The only object of the Motion is to strengthen their hands in pursuing the line of policy which, if I understood my noble Friend aright, it is their intention, of their own accord, to follow. The single objection which, as I gathered from my noble Friend, they have to this Motion, is the fear that it might be misinterpreted in France. My Lords, I cannot believe that there is any ground for such a fear; I cannot suppose that the Emperor of the French would see anything unfriendly towards himself in our expressing our opinion against the measure which he is supposed to contemplate. On the contrary, I think if the opinion of this House and the country were placed before the Emperor in language

  589
  firm, and at the same time amicable, it would be calculated to produce considerable effect—because, it must surely be the interest of the Emperor to attend to our remonstrances. What, let mo ask, can France gain by this comparatively insignificant addition to her territory to compensate her for the loss of confidence and the loss of character which such a measure must entail? My noble Friend has already adverted to the commercial treaty recently signed between this country and France. We are told that the Emperor of the French is about to adopt a liberal commercial policy, in which this treaty is the first step. But, can a liberal commercial policy produce its proper fruits unless there is commercial and political confidence in the continuance of peace? Confidence is the very breath of life by which trade and industry are maintained; and how can that confidence in the permanence of peace exist for a day in Europe if this annexation of Savoy to France is to be carried into effect, in a manner, and upon principles which hold out to all Europe the prospect of further and indefinite changes that cannot possibly be accomplished without provoking all the horrors of war? I say that this annexation would produce a shock to confidence, which in France and in Europe would be felt by trade and industry for years to come. And has not the Emperor himself the deepest interest (if he has a due concern for his own character) in abstaining from carrying this project into effect? We all know that statements have been made in the newspapers that this annexation is only the execution of a design long entertained though studiously concealed. We know that it has been asserted—I trust falsely—that this would be merely the carrying into effect of a secret stipulation entered into between Sardinia and France some considerable time before the breaking out of the late war, by which Sardinia was to be put in possession of a great increase of territory in Italy, in return for which France was to obtain Savoy and Nice. Now, my Lords, if that were true—and I trust most sincerely that it is not—it would be impossible to find terms sufficiently strong to describe the iniquity and the immorality of the two parties concerned. When we remember the language that was used in France before the breaking out of the war, the solemn protestations of her desire, up to the last moment, to preserve peace, her asseverations, even after the war had made
  590
  some progress, that she had no selfish object in view, and had no intention of promoting her territorial aggrandisement, can we believe that all these solemn asseverations were made at the same time that there existed a private stipulation for dividing the prey, entered into before the quarrel was picked, through which the booty was to be obtained? If such a compact were entered into between France and Sardinia, I say it would be difficult to find in the annals of the world a case of more flagrant iniquity. I hope these things are not true. They have seemed to me so bad that I have tried as much as possible to reject the belief that such things can really be true. I still do so; but I cannot deny that those who affirm them are able to appeal to strong circumstantial evidence in favour of their assertions. I hope that, in spite of appearances, the fact is not as stated; but if, in addition to the circumstantial evidence we already have in support of these allegations, we should have the additional pregnant fact that this design of joining Savoy to France is carried into effect, it will be impossible, however anxious we may be to do so, longer to retain our incredulity. If the Emperor of the French has a due regard to his own honour and character, he will be grateful if this country should come forward in a calm and friendly spirit to urge him to abstain from that, which I cannot describe otherwise than as a great crime against the civilized world. My Lords, I have taken the first opportunity that presented itself to press upon my noble Friends on the Government bench my sense of the great importance of this question. I have done so from no hostile feeling, and with an earnest desire to avoid any remark of an invidious character on their conduct in relation to this matter; but with all my desire to avoid even an approach to censure, I am compelled to express my regret that my noble Friend and Her Majesty's Government have omitted some clearer expression of the opinion I am convinced they must entertain on this subject. It must have struck all your Lordships who take a view similar to my own as to the importance of this question of the proposed annexation, that the language of my noble Friend and that of the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, as reported to have been used by him in "another place," have been singularly mild to say the least, considering the gravity of the case. I think it is specially impor-

  591
  tant that Her Majesty's Government should at this moment give cordial expression to what I believe are the opinions of every Englishman on this subject. My noble Friend adverted to the commercial treaty with France. Now, I think that before that treaty was signed—before Her Majesty's Government consented to give to the Government of France so signal a mark of their friendship and good will—they ought to have required from the French Emperor, in some authentic and formal shape, a distinct disavowal of his entertaining any such designs with regard to Savoy as have been imputed to him. I deeply regret that the treaty was signed without having some such disavowal as that; but then the omission makes it the more important that we should now take some measures to obtain it; and, if in accordance with the unanimous vote of this House, and I hope of the other House of Parliament also, Her Majesty's Government should even now ask for such a disavowal, I am persuaded that it will not he withheld. I do not ask your Lordships to agree to the Motion if my noble Friend opposes it, but I hope that my noble Friend himself will see the propriety of adopting it.
  THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURY: My Lords, I have all along shared in the deep and anxious feeling entertained by the whole people of this country in favour of Italian liberty, and in the wish entertained by all parties that the Italians should rise to everything that is honourable, free, and great; but I fear that if the matter now under discussion be allowed to find its consummation in the way in which it is said to be desired by France, we shall see the great question of Italian liberty mixed up with elements that must hereafter be productive of the greatest mischief to Europe, and that will cast a deep and indelible stain both upon the Emperor of the French and the King of Sardinia. I gathered from my noble Friend that this matter is not yet consummated—is still under consideration, and that, therefore, there is still time for this and the other House of Parliament, and the whole people of England, to declare their unanimous and decided opinion regarding it. I judge that the Emperor of the French is still endeavouring to carry out this object, and that the Sardinian Government are bringing forward as many arguments and as much influence as they can to prevent it. If so, now is the time to declare our opinion, and to do what we can to obtain
  592
  justice for the weaker side in this contest. There can be no doubt that a great stain will be inflicted on all those engaged in this transaction should it be carried into effect. Such a result I should deeply regret. I am anxious for the honour of the French Emperor; but if he persist in this demand for the annexation of Savoy, how will he reconcile it with the words he uttered at Milan—those words with which he endeavoured to conciliate the opinions of Europe—and which I agreed with my noble Friend (Earl Granville) are among the most noble words that ever fell from the lips of man. We have been told that France goes to war for an idea; but in this case the abstract and sublime have been brought down to something that is concrete and commercial. Instead of standing by a mere idea, the French Emperor requires additional territory and additional influence, and the rights and interests of nations are merged in dynastic enterprises. Sardinia cannot come out unscathed from such a project unless she resist the attempt to the full extent of her moral power—and I will not hesitate to say to the full extent of her physical power also. That she should do rather than submit to the degradation. And even Italy herself will be in some measure to blame, because she will secure advantages to herself at the expense of the hereditary rights of another people. Indeed the elements of mischief in this matter are both abundant and dangerous. Are we to see French influence substituted for that of Austria in Italy? It is true that French influence would be exercised in a more careful, delicate, and astute manner than that of Austria—no doubt the policy of France would be more artful; but the dominion will be the same, and the independence of Italy will be placed in equal jeopardy. Then, are we to see the frontier of France advance until it comes in contact with the republic of Geneva? Does not this scheme affect the independence of Switzerland? Are we to believe that the acquisition of Savoy and Nice, and the beautiful port of Villafranca is not an important step towards realizing the French policy of turning the Mediterranean into a French lake? Then, coincident with this state of things, there is the revival of the wild scheme of the Suez Canal, which may be, commercially, the most absurd thing ever propounded, but considered politically has a very different meaning. There would be a French settlement established, and one

  593
  more French port acquired on that side of the Mediterranean. But, my Lords, I look with far more apprehension on this new principle which is now to be laid down for the government of nations. We have heard much about natural boundaries, and have been told that Savoy has been claimed because rightly it belongs to France; but we are now, according to the new doctrine which has been propounded, to claim as a right conterminous nations speaking the same language. In that case the smaller nation speaking the language of the greater must invariably be absorbed, though not perhaps at first by open and direct violence, but rather by diplomatic trickery. I do not hesitate to say that if this principle is to be recognized and practically adopted in any single instance, all Europe, to use a common but significant expression, will be submitting to one of the greatest humbugs ever perpetrated on mankind. We are told that at a recent public meeting held at Chambery, a strong opinion was expressed in favour of annexation. But let me remind your Lordships that it is very possible for great personages to coerce priests in one country, and to coax them in another. But there has been another meeting at Chambery, at which a diametrically opposite feeling was expressed. Who is to decide? It is suggested in the French press that even the King of Sardinia is not to be at liberty to employ his own agents in the maintenance of his own and his people's rights. The case of Central Italy is not analogous. There we have the plain fact before us that the country is without a ruler. And the people of Central Italy have a perfect right to declare under what governor they will serve. But is that the case with the Savoyards? Have the Savoyards thrown off their allegiance to their rightful Sovereign? Are they in open rebellion? No. Their country is an integral part of the kingdom of Sardinia, and only by the whole mass of the people of Sardinia can the question be decided, whether Savoy is, or is not to be separated from the parent State. But, observe what a future is being opened up under this new policy! Take the case of Geneva. If this new principle be good, that conterminous nations speaking the same language are to be annexed to the greater nation, provided only there be an expression of sympathy on the part of the people, can any person who has lately been in Geneva doubt that an expression of sympathy might with great
  594
  facility be got up there in favour of annexation with France? If this principle he good, see how essily the whole system of Europe may be broken up. I want to know, for instance; why Germany should not demand the Baltic provinces from Russia; and why Russia—who, as we well know, is not reluctant to put such principles in motion—should be hindred from claiming the Slavonic provinces of Austria. Once let such a principle be recognized, and everything will be broken up; all things will be at sea; and all to gratify the ambition and the policy of one man, who thinks he has new schemes to propound, but whoso object is to break up the whole European system established on the treaties of 1815. But a new inducement has been held out by the French Government to induce Sardinia to consent to this proposition. We are told that the French Government will be content with annexing part and surrendering part to the Swiss Republic. Is this to be done without the consent of the people? Is such a proposition to be entertained in the present day? Is it not a revival of the wild principles that led to the partition of Poland, from the effects of which the nations of Europe are still writhing? If annexation is to take place—which God forbid!—let Savoy be annexed bodily to the Republic of Switzerland—the country that has the deepest interest in the peace of Europe, in the maintenance of treaties, and in the liberty of all nations. But, God forbid that anything of the kind should take place. I believe that nothing could be more prejudicial to the state of Europe, or more disastrous to the future peace of the world and the progress of civilization. These are the general and detailed arguments against such a measure; but it rests on great and broad principles that far exceed in importance any arguments founded on details which can be urged against it. To the latest hour of my life I will protest—and in doing so I am sure I speak the sentiments of the great mass of my countrymen—against handing over a nation that enjoys free institutions to a Government under a despotic dynasty; and against handing over a free people bound hand and foot to a country where they can enjoy no free expression of opinion, or, if guaranteed that expression of opinion, can exercise no power in giving it practical effect. I protest against a country where religious liberty is proclaimed, being handed over to a nation where religious liberty, if proclaimed, is often violated; and I protest also against

  595
  the policy of treating nations like flocks of sheep, and making them, regardless of their consent, the subjects of barter and exchange. We, in this country, have long protested against the traffic in human flesh. I equally protest against any traffic in human or national rights. I implore the Government, in the name of all the great principles cherished by the people of England, to use every effort in their power to place before the Emperor of the French the fearful consequences of such a measure as this—to appeal to his judgment, to his sagacity, and to his better feelings, and I doubt not that, if they do so, he will be brought to a wise conclusion. But, be that as it may, let the Government go forth, representing the deep sense of the people of this country, acting on the convictions of justice and the rights of nations, and I doubt not that then we shall succeed in the object we now have in view, and beat back, by the unanimous voice of the people of England, the consummation of this most pernicious and disgraceful project.
  THE DUKE OF NEWCASTLE:—I shall not, for more than a few moments, stand between the noble Earl (the Earl of Derby, who rose at the same time) and your Lordships. I do not rise for the purpose of interfering with the future progress of this discussion, but chiefly to implore your Lordships not to be led away by the tone which my noble Friend has just imparted to the debate. We are accustomed frequently to hear honest and honourable sentiments fall from the noble Earl expressed in very fervid language. He is accustomed to deal in a similar manner with domestic topics, in which the mischief done, if any, can be comparatively small compared with that which may arise from such language upon a question like that now before your Lordships. I cannot help thinking that the tendency of my noble Friend's language, and the tone he has given to this debate, are calculated to frustrate the object which we all have in view. Hoping that these questions are likely to receive a peaceful solution, I deprecate such expressions as he has used in reference to some of the countries concerned. Even were it justifiable, it is not dignified; but I appeal to him whether he was justified in using one phrase—namely, that in which he called upon Sardinia to oppose not merely with her moral influence, but with her physical power, the measure now under discussion. I apprehend that if such language coming from a Member of your
  596
  Lordships' House, is adopted by the House, it will amount to a declaration that your Lordships would approve of resort to war; and I say it would not be just or honourable to call on Sardinia to enter on a war with this object unless we were fully prepared, under all conditions and under all circumstances, to assist her. My noble Friend followed two noble Lords who have spoken upon this question in a different tone, although they have had the same object as he has. I can assure your Lordships that while listening to the speech of the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Normanby), and not less so to that of the noble Earl (Earl Grey), the Government have not felt any objection to the discussion of this subject by independent Peers, and if we do resist the Motion, it is merely because we are convinced that its adoption would, instead of assisting the efforts of Government, materially tend to thwart them; but if such would be the result of the Motion, to how far greater extent must it be the consequence of such speeches as that of the noble Earl who spoke last? I was distressed to hear one expression that fell from the noble Earl (Earl Grey) who complained of the mild language held upon this subject by my noble Friend the President of the Council in this, and the noble Lord the Secretary for Foreign Affairs in the other House of Parliament. If the noble Earl had deprecated, not the mild language of Her Majesty's Ministers, but their weak conduct, I could have felt that he had indeed something to complain of. But I apprehend it is the conduct of wise and good Ministers not to indulge in violent language, but to express themselve in mild and respectful terms when addressing other Governments, to use such language as they would desire to have held towards them by foreign Governments; and while offering firm remonstrances, to do so in terms respectful and considerate towards the Government to which they are addressed. I am quite sure that if the language of Her Majesty's Ministers had at all approached or resembled that we have just heard, one of two events would have happened—a war, or the annexation, which we all deprecate, would have been carried out. We know, and must bear in mind, that all that is said here is read across the water, and we should not forget what we felt under similar circumstances. Have we forgotten the just anger that was exhibited when men, far less responsible to the Government, filling

  597
  less important positions than Members of the Legislature, held such violent language with regard to us, how great was our indignation, and that the country was almost ready to take up arms to avenge itself? I do most earnestly deprecate language which tends to cause irritation on the other side of the Channel, and I feel a confident hope that if the matter be left in the hands of the Government, and they are allowed to carry on the negotiation in a firm hut respectful and conciliatory spirit, we have a good prospect of attaining our object. But if noble Peers come forward to support the Government by violent speeches, there can be little doubt that the annexation which we all desire to prevent will be carried out, The noble Earl who spoke previously (Earl Grey) put the question of English interests upon a proper basis, not as a separate interest, but a European one, in which England was jointly concerned with other Powers, and, following out the principle, I believe your Lordships cannot doubt that the Government has from the first done all in its power by representations, both to France and Sardinia, to prevent that which we all deprecate, and, if permitted, will continue to do so in the same spirit which has hitherto guided it.
  LORD BROUGHAM:—My Lords, I wish to make the few observations which I have to offer to your Lordships before the noble Earl near me (the Earl of Derby) rises to address you, because of the part I have always taken in all questions relating to Italy. In the first place, allow me to say I entirely approve of, and was much gratified by the statement of the noble Earl the President of the Council. I view with much satisfaction the statement which my noble Friend made in regard to the communications received from France and sent to France, and I will add that I entirely object, as much as my noble Friend the noble Marquess and the noble Earl object, to what is called the annexation of Savoy and Nice to the French Empire. My objection rests upon the grounds stated by my noble Friends, and it is not merely because of the comparatively trifling addition, whether territorial or strategical, which such an annexation would give to the French Empire, but because of the breach of principle there would be in the departure from the settlement of Europe, and the prospect of what may follow—of what may, without any unreasonable alarm or without any stretch of imagination, be done by other Govern-
  598
  ments, or even what might be done by our nearest neighbour. We must consider what every man in the north of Europe will feel if this annexation takes place, after all the declarations which have been made, and after all the abstinence which had been described as the governing principle of the French Emperor. If after the Italian war, so professed to have been undertaken, this annexation takes place, where is it to stop? Where is the principle of boundaries to stop? What becomes of the boundary of the Rhine? I need go no further; but will there be a security against any further alteration or distribution of power in Germany as well as on the Rhine? But it appears to mo that your Lordships are all of the same opinion on this subject. I see no difference, except in the mode of expressing ourselves. If I were asked, I should say that I object to the language which my noble Friend near me (the Earl of Shaftesbury) has used, particularly that which he has applied to Sardinia—not the language of deprecation against Sardinia, but in his words of encouragement to that Power to go to war to prevent this annexation, the use of what he called physical force. But I do agree with my noble Friend in one principle he has enunciated. I agree that there can be nothing more atrocious than the handing over, against their will, the people of one country to another Government—the people of a free country, with free institutions, to a Power partaking of despotic. This was the crime, greatest ever committed by nations, the partition of Poland; nothing then can be worse than such a forcible transfer. But I will go further, and I object to the handing over of one country to another, even if not contrary to the wishes of the people. I agree with my noble Friends, that there can be nothing more clear than the principle laid down on the first night of the Session namely, that the Italians ought to be allowed to manage their own affairs, to settle their own form of Government, and to choose the persons to execute it without any foreign interference whatever. Everything should be done by themselves, without the interference of France, Austria, or Sardinia. Such interference is to be entirely deprecated. Still, I think that foreign interference may be used—not by force—but asserted in another form. I agree that the people of a country are themselves to regulate their own affairs in all respects—that the people of the Duchies and all the several Italian Powers hare a

  599
  right to throw off their rulers—which they have done—to refuse to take them back—which they do not seem likely to do—and that they ought to manage their own concerns as regards the forms of government, or to institute new forms of government, whether they be monarchical, republican, or a mixture of the two, and the choice of rulers by whom their Government is to be administered. All that is their own affair, and no other Power has a right to interfere. But it is quite another thing even when the people of a country are unanimously desirous of annexing themselves to another Power—and here it is said on one side that the Savoyards desire annexation, and on the other that they object to it; but assuming that they are in favour of annexation, it is quite another thing if that change gives the other Powers of Europe reason to apprehend an alteration. I will not use the phrase so much abused of the balance of Power, but the distribution of territory. Then the principle of non-interference stops, and it becomes a question for the other Powers to entertain in regard to the distribution of Power in Europe. Now that, I contend, is quite consistent with the great doctrine of allowing the independence of Italy, and of allowing the Italians to arrange their internal affairs without foreign interference. But the practical question before the House is this: How are your Lordships to deal with the Motion before you? And I confess that, although I feel as anxious as any one to obtain the opinion of your Lordships upon this question, I should deprecate a course which would lead to the idea that there was any division of opinion, or which would show an indication that the great principles were not fully and unanimously approved of. Even suppose the Motion of my noble Friend is carried unanimously. I concur with the noble Duke opposite (the Duke of Newcastle) that this also would be inauspicious, that it would tend very much to obstruct the friendly communications and shake the friendly feeling between this country and France. And if it is rejected it might go forth that the adversaries of the Government of the Emperor had been defeated. In any case the Motion is calculated to disturb the good understanding between the two countries, and interfere with arrangements that are most important to the prospects of peace, and I therefore advise the noble Marquess not to press that Motion to a division.
  THE EARL OF DERBY: My Lords,
  600
  when I rose a short time since it was not for the purpose of continuing to any length the present debate, or rather what has been not so much a debate as a conversation of the utmost importance; and in which, with regard to the main principle involved in the Motion of the noble Marquess, there has not been, so far as I have observed, the slightest difference of opinion expressed by any one Member of this House. Undoubtedly, various noble Lords have expressed with more or less force the views they entertain of the supposed policy or scheme for the annexation of Savoy to France. The noble Earl (the Earl of Shaftesbury), who always speaks with considerable power, in alluding to this annexation, appeared to think that the measure has been finally determined on; while my noble and learned Friend, who has just sat down, spoke of the arrangements with respect to this matter as still trembling in the balance. [Lord BROUGHAM explained that what he spoke of as still trembling in the balance was the commercial treaty with France.] The only thing with which I have felt disappointed in the course of this debate is that in the address of the noble Earl the President of the Council, while he described the advice—the undoubtedly friendly advice, offered in firm and temperate language—Her Majesty's Government has tendered to the Government of France, he did not add that the advice so tendered has been accepted as conclusive and satisfactory, and that there is no reason for apprehending that the project, so fraught with evil and mischief to all concerned in it, is likely to be carried into effect. The noble Earl (the Earl of Shaftesbury) has pointed out, in the strong and forcible language he generally employs, the dangerous consequences arising from the present state of the affairs of Italy, and the dangerous consequences of substituting French for Italian influence in the Northern Provinces. Certainly, my Lords, that influence will be enormously augmented if the power of France is increased by the cession to it of the Province of Savoy, a measure that will leave open to France the gates of Italy. I must take the liberty of saying that when the late Government was using its utmost endeavours to persuade the several powers not to enter into that unhappy war, it especially pointed out the consequences that Sardinia and Savoy would have to apprehend from an alliance with France, should there be an actual outbreak of hosti-

  601
  lities. These consequences are now, perhaps, more clearly seen than they were at that time; and, however difficult it may be to effect it, I hope that the unanimous opinion of Europe, firmly and temperately expressed, may succeed in preventing a measure that can only lead to interminable complications or consequences yet more dangerous. In the course of this debate I think there has been much that must be gratifying to Her Majesty's Government. I do not agree with the observation that has been made that the adoption of the Motion would be disadvantageous to the general peace and good understanding existing between the two countries. I am certain that if it is rejected because there is a difference of opinion between the noble Marquess and Her Majesty's Ministers on the question as to whether the grounds laid down by the noble Marquess are not constitutional principles or sound international principles, that its rejection would be a singular evil. However that may be, making all allowance for the language which has been used by my noble Friend, Her Majesty's Government will be among the first to admit that the present discussion has exhibited a strong and unanimous feeling on the part of every Member of the British House of Peers, that must be a strong element in the preservation of the peace of Europe and the continuance of a good understanding with that Power whose conduct has been most strongly commented on. My Lords, it is not necessary to discuss the evils and dangers that will arise from the annexation of Savoy to France. They are admitted by all parties; one noble Lord has gone beyond another in the earnestness with which he has pointed out the dangers and evils which must result from the sanction of Europe being given to it. But let me express to all concerned my conviction that the two parties who will suffer most in character and honour by such an annexation will be the two Powers between whom the supposed compact has been made. It has already been pointed out that, by consenting to such an act, the French Emperor will contradict the liberal sentiments he uttered at Milan, and belie the whole course he has pursued since he ascended the throne of France. On every occasion he has studiously declared, and his actions have never yet been in contradiction to it, that whatever he might think, that whatever France might think, of the treaties of 1815, he did not intend to infringe them, but that he
  602
  recognized them as part of the international law of Europe. From that declaration the conduct of the French Emperor has never swerved. What course he might have pursued, had not Austria precipitated the war in Italy, it is now impossible to say; how far he might have been involved with Sardinia it is impossible to discuss, But the precipitation of Austria, after the declaration of the Emperor that, as long as she continued within her own dominions, he was determined to give no material assistance to Sardinia, commenced the war by the invasion of her neighbour's territory, from that moment, whatever the provocation she received, she precluded herself from calling on Europe to maintain her territorial rights as fixed by the treaties of 1815. But, my Lords, if any Power will suffer more than another, more even than France, and incur an indelible disgrace by giving up Savoy, that Power is Sardinia. She claimed to be the champion and vindicator of the liberty of Italy; she always declared that she entered into the war without any motive of self-aggrandisement, animated solely by a desire to achieve freedom for Italy, thinking nothing of herself. I can hardly understand the language of the noble Earl (Earl Granville) to-night, when he admitted that previous to the war there was some negotiation between France and Sardinia on the subject of a possible annexation of Savoy on certain conditions or contingencies. Now, if such negotiations ever did take place, I confess it is difficult to give credit to the declaration that Sardinia engaged in the war without any previous idea of an increase of territory. You are aware, my Lords, that by a special treaty—the Treaty of Turin—to the provisions of which, I believe, the assent of the other Powers of Europe was obtained, Switzerland and Piedmont reciprocally bound themselves under no circumstances and upon no conditions to cede to any other Power the territory in question, and Piedmont, having accepted that territory, not simply by way of exchange or with the object of promoting the peace of Europe, but by way of affording mutual security as between Switzerland and herself, would, in my opinion, be guilty, not only of a violation of the general law of Europe, but of an infraction of those specific engagements she has contracted with that Power, whose independence and neutrality is the very key-stone of the peace of Europe. I am not, however, prepared to attribute to Sar-

  603
  dinia conduct at once so discreditable and so inconsistent with the professions which she has made. I trust, on the contrary, that she will have the firmness to say to France—"This is a question with respect to which I am unable to comply with your wishes. I am bound, not alone by the general law of Europe and the treaties of 1815, but by a specific engagement into which I have entered with Switzerland, never to yield up to a third Power this particular territory." Could France, my Lords, in opposition to such a plea as that, by force and without the consent of Piedmont, take possession of Savoy? If she did seize upon that province, must it not be either by resorting to an act of the most unscrupulous violence—an act of which I am far from suspecting that she would be guilty—or as the result of the base and unprincipled connivance of the King of Sardinia, who would thus be despoiling his dominions of that portion of them which furnishes its best troops to his army and the most loyal and attached subjects to his throne? I do not, indeed think, my Lords, that the question is one in dealing with which it becomes this country to use the language of menace. I am, nevertheless, of opinion that it does befit England, as one of the great Powers of Europe, and by the free expression of the sentiments of this, the highest Assembly of a free nation, to have it placed upon record that the unanimous verdict of the Members of that Assembly is, that such conduct on the part of France as I have described would be inconsistent with the due maintenance of the treaties of 1815—that they deem it important, even in the interests of France herself, that she should do nothing to shake that confidence which it is so desirable should be established throughout Europe, and without the establishment of which no good security for the permanent peace of the Continent can be afforded. It is not, my Lords, the armed force of France, great as that undoubtedly is—it is not the important fact that the great resources of that great country are wielded by one absolute and despotic authority—it is not these combined circumstances which create apprehension. No, it is this which causes alarm—that she has never yet been able to succeed in inspiring Europe with perfect confidence in the steadiness of her policy, or in the pacific character of her intentions. Let her, then, show but the slightest design to annex to her own a territory, small in
  604
  extent, but great in strategic importance; let her but exhibit the smallest indication, now that she has so far succeeded in expelling Austrian influence from Italy, to perpetuate her own domination in that country by means of large standing armies—maintained I know not for what purpose—and I speak not now of the French garrison at Rome—let her, in short, but evince the most trifling disposition to transfer to herself the authority which Sardinia at present possesses over Savoy, thus securing for herself a passage into Italy, and obtaining a resting-place whence her armies may overrun the territories of an ally whose dominions she has been the means of aggrandizing—but under such circumstances of aggrandizing, I would say, to the danger of that Ally—let France, I repeat, my Lords, but pursue such a course of policy as that, and then, indeed, confidence—which is a plant of slow growth, especially among nations—can hardly be expected to be re-established between the powerful French Empire and the rest of Europe, which is looking on and watching her movements, in an attitude of anxious and suspicious hositility. I must, at the same time, observe, my Lords, that a great opportunity is now afforded to the Emperor of the French to maintain unimpaired his character for scrupulous adherence to the principles of good faith. Let him, then, declare that he concurs with Her Majesty's Government in the view which they take of the evils which would be likely to flow, not merely from this annexation of Savoy to France, but from any infraction of those territorial limits which have been so long established, and that he desires the maintenance of the balance of power and the peace of Europe. Let him prove to the world that he went to war—as he declared it to be his intention to do—for the liberation of Italy from foreign control, and not with the view to wield himself that power the exercise of which he condemned in another; lot him show that he respects England, and that right of self-government and independent action which we freely recognized in the case of that mighty Empire over which he reigns by the choice of its people; let him make it plain to Europe that neither upon the side of the Rhine nor the Alps is he to be tempted, by any vain idea as to what may seem to him the natural boundaries of France, to depart from those just principles which are far more potent than any natural limits whatsoever; let him frankly and avowedly take that course not

  605
  under menace, for menace no nation would venture to offer him; but acting on the friendly representations of a country with which it is his boast that he is on terms of close intimacy and alliance, whose policy he declares to be identical with his own, and with which he does not hesitate to announce that he acts band in hand and side by side. Let him, my Lords, I repeat, pursue that course; let him proclaim to the world that no violation of the existing boundaries of Europe is to be apprehended at his hands, and that he has given England the most solemn assurances that, in common with her, he will proceed upon the principle of absolute and entire non-interference with the affairs of other countries. If be so acts, then indeed, my Lords, will be have nobly availed himself of the opportunity which is now presented to him of reaping that best and most priceless fruit of the victories which be has won—the establishment over the minds of his fellow men of that moral authority which, unlike his great military power, is only to be attained by unswerving good faith, by scrupulous integrity, and by a strict adherence to the obligations of treaties and the rights of nations.
  THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURYexpressed his regret that in the course of his speech in referring to the policy which contended that this country and Sardinia ought to pursue in reference to the question under the notice of the House, he should have used the phrase "physical power," to which the noble Duke opposite (the Duke of Newcastle) had alluded.
  LORD STRATFORD DE REDCLIFFEsaid, the remarks which had just fallen from the noble Earl (the Earl of Derby), who had spoken in terms so eloquent on the important subject under discussion, rendered him desirous to address a few observations with respect to it to the House. The noble Earl had stated that every noble Lord who had taken part in the discussion had in reality given expression to the same sentiments, modified although those sentiments might be by the form in which they were conveyed. It bad so happened, however, that, with the exception of the noble Marquess by whom the debate bad been opened, no noble Lord practically connected with the diplomatic service had ventured to address the House upon a question which in so eminent a degree came within the sphere of that department. As one, therefore, who had some experience in diplomatic affairs, he might perhaps be
  606
  permitted to lay before their Lordships very briefly the views with respect to the present Motion which he entertained. He should, then, in the first place, observe that he entirely concurred with the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Derby) in the opinion that it was for the interest of Europe at large that we should enter our protest against the addition of Savoy to the territories of the French Emperor, for it was impossible with justice to say that France by obtaining possession of that province and Nice would not be furnished with additional power of extending her influence over Italy; and although it might be said that England had no special interest in the latter country beyond that which related to her commerce, yet it was of the utmost importance that foreign influence should not be employed there in a manner prejudicial to us, especially if that influence were to proceed from a quarter which afforded indication of a readiness to pursue a policy unfavourable to this country—a policy on which he hoped the present Emperor of the French would never act, although it must be borne in mind that such had been the traditional policy of the French nation from the earliest times. He alluded to that policy which France had long been desirous of carrying out, which would convert the Mediterranean into a French lake. With regard to the territorial transfer now said to be contemplated, in proportion as it might be inexpedient to hazard the peace of this country and of Europe by our opposition to that transfer, so it was incumbent on Parliament at the proper time to express its opinions on the subject, and thus afford to the Government a support which would enable them when the time came to act up to their declarations. These declarations, though not quite so strong and so emphatic as had just been heard from other parts of the House, made it evident that the Government perceived the danger to which this annexation might lead, and felt themselves bound to take whatever measures could in prudence be suggested to prevent it. It could not be denied that, in addition to the increased influence which would accrue to her in Italy, France would derive from the acquisition of Savoy and Nice advantages infinitely superior to those which we had lately been accused of aiming at. What importance, for example, was attached by some of our neighbours to that miserable island at the entrance of the Red Sea, and what irritation had been produced by

  607
  our supposed desire of acquiring it! The possession of Perim was, indeed, of little importance as compared with the possession of Savoy and Nice; but even these considerations, important as they were, became comparatively trivial by the side of the questions of general policy which had just been so eloquently commented upon by the noble Earl (the Earl of Derby). It was in this point of view that the strange and pernicious principles which had lately been put forward across the Channel were chiefly to be regarded. We had certainly no right to attribute these principles to the constituted authorities of France; yet they bore about them some marks of recognition by the authorities, and could not, therefore, be divested of importance. When their Lordships remembered these things, he could not help thinking that the Motions of the noble Marquess and the discussion which it had evoked were such as to inspire the strongest feelings of satisfaction; and he must therefore add his testimony to that of others as to the service rendered by the noble Marquess to this House and to the country by bringing the question forward. In the debate which had taken place he had heard nothing inconsistent with the language which a great assembly like this was entitled and was, indeed, bound to use. It seemed to him that just in proportion as they were called upon to do everything which might prevent the country from being plunged into war, so it became a more urgent duty on the part of Parliament to express a strong opinion when principles were enunciated which struck at the roots of all international obligations and of all international confidence. On such an occasion surely it was in the province of this House and of Parliament to meet such principles by a counter declaration, which should operate upon other countries, and, perhaps, thereby be the means of checking designs which it would be necessary to oppose even at the hazard of war. In the course of this debate a just tribute had been paid to the honour and the consistency of the great man now at the head of the French Empire. As far as the direct relations between the two countries were concerned this tribute was no doubt just and well-founded. But at the same time no one could help observing that during the last few years there had been certain transactions, by the side, so to speak, of the direct and public relations between the two countries, which had ex-cited astonishment combined with some de-
  608
  gree of distrust, not only here, but throughout Europe. When these matters were brought before Parliament, and opinions were frankly interchanged there respecting them, he thought their Lordships had a right to expect that instead of being treated as causes of offence or of quarrel by other Powers, these opinions should, on the contrary, be regarded as arising from a just sense of duty not only towards our own country, but towards Europe at large, and from a sincere desire for the continuance of that peace which was of so much importance to us and the whole world. This free expression of opinion on all subjects affecting our Foreign relations was not only of value in preventing bloodshed, but in extending also those great commercial interests which strengthened the friendship of nations; and he hoped that the present discussion would so be regarded, and would not fail of that happy effect.
  THE MARQUESS OF NORMANBY, in reply, said he was surprised to find that the Government made any difficulty in assenting to his Motion. It was not his intention to resist the appeal made to him by his noble Friend opposite, who said it would be inconvenient that the Motion should be pressed. But, although he was willing to withdraw it, he wished it to be understood that, his noble Friend excepted, every one who had spoken in this debate had assented not only to the principle which he had put forward, but to the expediency of giving expression to the unanimous assent of the House by adopting the Address he had moved; but by not pressing it he meant to leave upon Her Majesty's Ministers the responsibility of carrying out the views of the House in the way they thought most likely to be successful. It had been stated that if Savoy were annexed to France it would be by the decision of the people. He hoped their unbiassed decision was here meant, and that their opinions would be elicited without any foreign pressure. But he begged at the same time distinctly to be understood as not agreeing to withdraw his Motion for the reasons given by his noble and learned Friend (Lord Brougham), that its adoption might endanger the success of the Commercial Treaty. The prospect of such a result would not alarm him at all. But if his noble and learned Friend were still in the House, he would tell him what he had often heard was said in Paris within the last few days as to the reason why England would not strongly resist this measure. The phrase used might be best trans-

  609
  lated, because "England has sold her birthright for a mess of pottage."
  Motion (by leave of the House) withdrawn.
  House adjourned at half-past Eight o'clock, till To-morrow, half-past Ten o'clock.