Sitting of 4 March 1861

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1° Roads and Bridges (Scotland); Fictitious Savings Banks.
2° Local Government Act Amendment.

THE ABERDEENSHIRE ELECTION.

  QUESTION.
  MR. MUREsaid, a Question had been put to the right hon. and learned Lord Advocate on a previous evening with reference to the appointment of a gentleman who had taken part in the Aberdeenshire election, and also with reference to certain riots which had occurred. He wished to know, Whether the Government are now in possession of any fuller information on the subject?
  THE LORD ADVOCATEstated, that he had received official information upon the subject of the recent death of a voter at Aberdeen; but the House would agree with him that when a matter was under judicial investigation it was not desirable that it should be made the subject of discussion in that House. At the same time, if any statement were made respecting it, it was only right that it should be distinctly and entirely correct. The statement which he had made the other night was founded upon information that had been given him; but he found that the voter had died from inflammation of the throat; of that there could be no doubt, being certified by four medical men who had attended him on the occasion. It was also perfectly certain, that so far as the appearances on the body were concerned, there was nothing to indicate that the inflammation did not arise from simply natural causes. That, too, was certified by the four medical men. With regard to the question whether the

  1307
  agitation and excitement of the election had produced those symptoms, the medical men were not agreed, two of them being of opinion that there was no ground for attributing the disease to that cause, whilst the other two, Dr. Davidson and Dr. Mitchell, were of opinion that it might have been produced by that cause. He would not take upon himself to say how far either were correct, because the investigation was not yet completed; but he could venture to say this—that neither as regarded the actual facts that took place at the election, nor as regarded the opinion that might be formed as to its results, were the material circumstances ascertained, and that neither he nor any one else could possibly at that moment express or even form a conclusion upon the subject.

GOVERNMENT APPOINTMENTS.

  MR. SPRING RICE.—QUESTION.
  MR. CONTNGHAMsaid, there was a question of which he had not given notice, but which he still thought he might put, attention having been called to the appointments made by the Government. He perceived that a son of Lord Monteagle had been appointed to a lucrative situation, and he wished to know, Whether it was in acknowledgment of the eminent services which that nobleman had rendered to the Liberal party in the last Session of Parliament?
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: I am unable to answer the question.

  THE BALLOT SOCIETY AND THE POST OFFICE.—QUESTION.
  MR. T. DUNCOMBEsaid, he rose to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether a Letter has been received by the Postmaster General from the Secretary to the Ballot Society, complaining of the non-delivery of upwards of three hundred letters addressed to Electors of the city of Ripon, and posted in London, and whether there would be any objection to produce any Reports or other Communications made to the Postmaster General on the subject?
  MR. PEELsaid, that a letter had been received from the Ballot Society stating that in December last letters were sent by book post to all the electors of Ripon, and that very few of them had been delivered. The postmaster of Ripon and all the letter-carriers there denied positively that any letter received by them was suppressed, or
  1308
  that any such thing could by possibility have occurred. The Inspector of the Post Office had been in communication with the Ballot Society that day; and had made a Report, in which he stated that the Assistant Secretary of the Society informed him that, on the occasion of a public meeting held in Ripon, it was stated by certain persons that they had not received those packets. It, therefore, appeared that this application to the Treasury and the Post Office was founded merely on a statement made at a public meeting. It was suggested, also, by the society's officer that, in some instances, parties to whom the letters had been delivered might not like to admit it. The Post Office had asked the Ballot Society the name of any one person to whom a packet had been sent, and who had not received it; but they were unable to give such information. Under these circumstances he thought he was warranted in saying that the packets could not have been posted, or that if they had been they must have been delivered. It was rather unfortunate that no complaint had been made until six weeks after the letters were sent.

PASSPORTS IN BELGIUM.

  QUESTION.
  MR. T.DUNCOMBEsaid, he would now beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether Her Majesty's Government have invited, or intend to invite, the King of the Belgians to follow the example of the Emperor of France by dispensing with Passports on the part of British Subjects visiting Belgium?
  LORD JOHN RUSSELL: Sir, the answer I have to give is that without any invitation on the part of the British Government a modification has been made by the Belgian Government with respect to Passports in Belgium. On the 4th February a despatch was received from Lord Howard de Walden stating that new Passport Regulations had been made, purporting to relieve any persons travelling to Belgium from the annoyance and trouble of getting Passports; but any persons remaining in Belgium will be obliged to have some proof of their nationality. So far, therefore, as travellers are concerned the necessity for Passports is abolished.

  THE ENGLISH SQUADRON IN THE JAPANESE WATERS.—QUESTION.
  MR. WARNERsaid, he would beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, Whe-

  1309
  ther it is true that a considerable Naval I Force has been directed to proceed to the Japanese waters, and whether precautions have been adopted to prevent any Consul or other Civil authority from commencing a war with Japan without instructions from the Government.
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: I believe that part of the squadron in the Chinese Seas will visit Japan, not with any he stile or warlike purpose, but for the purpose of giving that moral support to British authority which is so desirable.

THE "NARCISSUS" FRIGATE.

  SIR BALDWIN WALKER.—QUESTION.
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTON: Sir, I have given notice of a Question to the noble Lord the Secretary for the Admiralty, whom I do not see in his place, but perhaps the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Whitbread) can answer the question. I have observed from the newspapers to-day that the Narcissus frigate has left Spithead, but that a communication was afterwards sent off to the ship. I wish to ask, Whether the Narcissus has finally left England, or whether it is intended that Sir Baldwin "Walker shall give his evidence before a Committee before proceeding to the Cape?
  MR. WHITBREADsaid, he had no notice of the Question. So far as he was aware, the Narcissus had left England, and no order that he was aware of had been sent from the Admiralty to detain Sir Baldwin Walker.

CONSOLIDATED FUND AND EXCHEQUER BILLS ACTS.—COMMITTEE.
Order for Committee read.
Consolidated Fund and Exchequer Bills Acts considered in Committee.
(In the Committee).
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I rise, Sir, to call the attention of the Committee to a subject which is undoubtedly an important one, but which, at the same time, I am afraid will not be found the most attractive of all those which might be submitted to its notice. It is to the present Legislative arrangements with respect to the instruments of public credit, called Exchequer bills, and to certain proposals which I am about to make for the purpose of altering, in some material respects, the footing upon which they are at present placed. For a number
1310
of years changes have been going forward in the monetary condition of this country which have very much tended to contract the market for bills of this description, the principal change being the great multitude of securities which now exist, and which are of such a nature as to complete successfully with Exchequer bills, and thereby narrow the demand for them. Of course it would have been open to the public to keep afloat in the market an amount of Exchequer bills equal to those which were formerly in use; but that could only have been done by raising the rate of interest to a point at which the employment of such bills would cease to be in any respect advantageous to the public. The consequence has been that their amount has progressively diminished; and to the cause of that diminution and the mode of improving their position, I shall now call the attention of the Committee. The Select Committee of this House which was appointed in 1857 directed its attention to this among other subjects, and in the fourth section of its Report it made some important recommendations, the principal of which was this—that Exchequer bills, instead of being continued to be voted as part of the Annual Supplies, and made chargeable on grants of Parliament for Supply services, should be transferred at once to the Consolidated Fund; and that, together with this change, they should likewise cease to be, so far as the corpus of the Bill itself, loans annually renewable, but should be made current for a period as long as might be convenient, or as long as the instrument itself might bear circulation without the necessity of being renewed. The first four of the Resolutions which I have laid upon the table are intended to give effect to the recommendations of the Committee. They are not, indeed, literally and absolutely bounded by those recommendations; because they contain proposals which, I think, may be regarded as developments and applications of the principle upon which the recommendations are founded. The subject of the fifth Resolution was hardly a matter within the original appointment of the Committee, but it involves in principle a return to what was formerly the practice of the State; and in that view I shall trouble the Committee with a few remarks on the subject.
With regard to the question of Exchequer bills, I hold that the public who are the borrowers, and the holder, who is the I lender to the public, have a common in-

1311
terest in these instruments. Speaking generally, the convenience of the borrower and of the lender are, though in different forms, one and the same. Whatever makes the bill a convenient security and gives to it steadiness in price, or invests it with all those features that make it a desirable security, is in the first instance for the interest of the holder of the Bill, because it follows that he is content to lend his money at a lower rate of charge. On the other hand, whatever tends to give unsoundness in these securities reacts on the public interest, because it makes the holder unwilling to lend his money except at a higher rate of interest. But over and above what affects the position of Exchequer bills in the market, there is a separate consideration, and one which principally attracted the notice of the Select Committee. The subject is one of a technical character, but I hope to make it intelligible to those who give me their attention. The Exchequer bills we are now dealing with are called Supply Exchequer bills. They are voted in Committee of Supply, and purport to be part of the Supplies of the year; and when they are presented for payment must be paid out of money that is already apportioned to the Supply, service of the year. The origin of this custom, which has now become a most inconvenient one to the regular progress of the public service, is to be found in the nature of the original instrument itself. When Exchequer bills were first resorted to they were simply instruments of credit issued in anticipation of the revenues granted by Parliament, but the collection of which proceeded slower than had been anticipated, and slower than the demands of the public service required. The practice in consequence was for the Exchequer to issue an engagement at short date which stood in lieu of, and was to be liquidated out of the Supplies voted by Parliament as they came into the Exchequer. So long as Exchequer bills were really and substantially issued in aid of the Supplies of the year, there could not be a more becoming or appropriate arrangement; but that has long ago ceased to be the case. Practically speaking, Exchequer bills have now no connection with the Supplies of the year. We look upon them as part of the unfunded debt of the country; and, as part of the unfunded debt we renew them from year to year without the slightest regard to what we ordinarily term Supply. This
1312
system is a very antiquated one—it is as inconvenient as it is antiquated, and the Committee is now asked to change the basis of the arrangement. We have just had a remarkable instance of the great inconvenience of the existing arrangement. Within the last week there has been an exchange of Exchequer bills, and that exchange has taken place under circumstances entirely unprecedented; for whereas Exchequer bills bear a low rate of interest we have been compelled to change them at a time when the rate of interest at the Bank of England, representing the general condition of the money market, is no less than 8 per cent. It was, therefore, to be expected that a considerable amount of Exchequer bills would be presented for payment, instead of for renewal, with a view to the more profitable investment of the money. But, in point of fact, only £1,000,000 out of the £6,000,000 which might have been presented for payment in March have been presented for that purpose; and, therefore, the holders of £5,000,000 have taken renewals for twelve months at the rate of 3 per cent, when commercial bills can only be negotiated at the rate of 8 per cent. But what I wish to call the attention of the Committee to is this—that we are not allowed to pay these bills out of the Consolidated Fund, but must pay them out of the money voted by Parliament for the army and navy and the civil service of the country. The consequence is that £1,000,000 must be deducted as the first step from these monies voted by Parliament. But how, then, are the various establishments to which I have referred to be supported? The system resembles one of double charge, and it is obvious there cannot be a more inconvenient arrangement. Parliament votes—say £40,000,000—for the Supply service of the country, but, besides supplying money to that amount, it sends out instruments involving engagements to the extent of £14,000,000 or £15,000,000, and makes that amount chargeable as to money voted for Supply. The consequence is that though it may be found desirable to withdraw the Exchequer bills altogether, it cannot be done, because they are payable out of the amount that is wanted for the army, the navy, and the civil service of the country. We are, therefore, compelled to re-issue them by a very complicated form, to the Paymaster, not because we want to send out Exchequer bills, but because the Paymaster wants money for

1313
the service of the country. The Select Committee recommended that we should remove this portion of the unfunded debt from any relation to the Supplies of the year as a system nominal, fictitious, and inconvenient. But there are other reasons that make it desirable to alter the basis of this arrangement. One of these is the extreme difficulty of reducing the amount of Exchequer bills when that becomes desirable. At the commencement of a war, for instance, when funded operations can only be conducted on a large scale it is necessary that the Government should have in its hands the power of issuing instruments of this kind at such times and in such quantities as may be found convenient; consequently, in time of war, there is generally a large amount of Exchequer bills afloat. But when we come back to a time of peace there is the greatest possible difficulty in reducing them; because, as I have said, there is no regular method by which the Government can cancel these Exchequer bills, because they are not liquidated out of the general funds of the country, but out of the means which have been devoted to another purpose. Consequently the bills themselves are not allowed to lapse, but a re-issue is necessary, whether that re-issue is on financial grounds desirable or not. The result of this proceeding has been that the law has provided a remedy which, I think, is of an exceptionable kind—that is to say, it has enabled the Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt, without the approbation of Parliament, to go through the process of what is called "funding Exchequer bills;" and, although that is a very defective arrangement it is, as the law now stands, the only means by which, under the existing machinery of our financial system, it is possible to effect any material contraction in the amount of Exchequer bills that may at any time come into the market.
Then, again, nothing can be more cumbrous than the present instrument at the command of the Finance Minister for meeting a temporary depression of Exchequer bills. Of course, with the great fluctuations of the money-market of this country —fluctuations which, I am afraid, are becoming not less but more considerable and rapid than at any former period—instruments of this kind must, like other securities, undergo great variations in price. But it is most desirable to give them as far as possible a character of steadiness
1314
Sometimes a pressure comes upon the money-market which is of short duration, but which tells first, and most severely, upon instruments of this class. Exchequer bills go to a discount, although it is very desirable to keep them afloat at or above par; for it is not to the credit of the State that they should remain current at a discount, or go to a discount of any considerable amount. But at the present time the only mode by which that pressure can be met is by raising the rate of interest on the whole amount of Exchequer bills that may be in the market; and if the pressure comes soon after they are issued, as the term for which they run is not less than twelve months, the only remedy is very costly to the public, and may, if the pressure ceases, have the effect of carrying the Exchequer bills, before the twelve months have expired, to a premium so high as to be equally undesirable with the discount to which they had previously sunk. As to the inconvenience specially felt by the public it may be stated as follows:—In the first place the holders of these bills are called upon, at the expiration of the twelve months, to come to the west-end of the town to present their bills, and to deposit them for examination. They remain out of their possession for some days; and then the holders return to have new bills presented to them. Any one conversant with financial matters must see that this is a very serious inconvenience to commercial men; and if so it is, likewise, a very great obstruction to the circulation of these bills, and reacts on the public interest in discouraging that circulation. I propose, therefore, following the recommendation of the Committee to do away with the necessity, and indeed with the opportunity for the annual renewal of the Bill itself—meaning by that not the obligation contained in the bill, but the mere piece of paper on which the obligation is expressed. We propose to substitute for the bill annually exchanged an instrument of permanent currency, that will carry attached to it a number of coupons entitling the holder to receive the interest at the proper time. These coupons will be renewed from time to time, but the bill itself will remain in the hands of the holder until it may be necessary to renew it—in the same manner that a country bank-note may be renewed through its being worn and no longer in a convenient state for circulation. It is of most importance that I should be clearly under-

1315
stood on this point. In giving permanency to the bill it is not intended to give permanency to the currency of the bill. The bill will run on from year to year without renewal, but the currency will be renewed from year to year as it is at present—that is, the holder will be entitled to claim payment exactly as now, but if he prefers to continue to hold his bill a fresh term of twelve months will then commence; and so on from year to year, toties quoties. To avoid the necessity of presenting the bill at the West-end we propose to intrust the whole of the money business connected both with the liquidation of the bill and the payment of interest and principal into the hands of the Bank of England. It will be transacted as part of the business of the National Debt, in the form and at the place most convenient to the holders of these instruments. In the same way the holders of these bills have materially suffered from the great ranges of fluctuation in their value. I do not know that it will be possible to effect any great change in this respect, but I am very confident that something may be effected. I wish the Committee to understand how extensive these fluctuations have been. They have not indeed been so great as the fluctuations in the prices of the funds, or so great as the fluctuations in the rate of commercial discount, but still they have been very considerable. I have in my hand a list of the maximum and minimum prices of Exchequer bills during the last twenty years. There are only five of these years in which the price of Exchequer bills has not fluctuated as much or more than 30 s. The maximum fluctuation was in 1841, 21 s.; in 1849, 26 s.; in 1850, 18 s.; in 1851, 23 s.; in 1854, 24 s. Those are the years of the smallest fluctuation. But there were several years in which they were above 50 s. In 1845 the fluctuation was 59 s.; in 1847, 57 s.; in 1853, not less than 90 s. In the fourteen months from October, 1847, to December, 1848, the fluctuation was not less than 98 s. in the price of Exchequer bills. It is obvious that the range of this fluctuation is much connected with the facility or difficulty of applying the natural remedy—that of raising the rate of interest. If the rate of interest could be raised for a moderate period the bills could be more easily used, and the discount more readily checked. But if, on the other hand, the only way of interposing to prevent the discount is by the use of a measure that -will cost the
1316
public from £100,000 to £200,000, and which may end in leaving Exchequer bills as much too high with reference to the money-market as they were too low, then, of course, it is an instrument that must not be resorted to without very considerable deliberation.
I think the last objection I have to mention is this, that the écheance of the bill—that is, the date at which it is to be liquidated—is rather remote. In mercantile transactions a bill for six months is a very long bill; but Exchequer bills are Government bills running for twelve months. This is not in conformity with the ancient state of the law, for until the year 1838 Exchequer bills were presentable at an earlier period than at present. I now come to a proposal to enable the holders to claim payment at an earlier date. Before 1838 the state of the law with regard to the presentation of these bills conformed to the original theory on which their whole legal status was based. They were chargeable on the Supplies of the year following the year in which they were issued; and that being so, they might be presented for payment at any period following the 5th of April, that is to say, following the close of the financial year in which they were granted. This was not a convenient arrangement, for Exchequer bills might be presented at very different periods from the date at which they were issued. If they were issued on the 6th of April, they could not be presented for nearly twelve months. If they were issued on the 4th of April they could be presented after a single day. But practically the effect was this — Exchequer bills were issued at very various periods, and a number of them were payable at very short dates. I forgot to say when speaking of the Exchequer bills being presentable for payment I meant in payment of taxes; for their presentation for payment in cash could only take place at the end of a year—not before and not after. Until 1838 Exchequer bills might be presented in payment of taxes at any period after the 5th of April immediately following their issue, and if issued on the 4th of April they might be presented for payment in taxes on the 6th of April; and if issued on the 6th of April they would not be so presentable until the next 6th of April. In 1838 a different rule was substituted, and it was then established by Parliament that Exchequer bills might be presentable in payment of taxes at any period exceeding twelve

1317
months from the date of issue. This was equivalent, in point of fact, to destroying altogether the value of the privilege which the holders of Exchequer bills had enjoyed; because, inasmuch as every Exchequer bill was liable to be discharged in money at or after the expiration of twelve months from its issue, it was not very likely that the man who could receive his money in a direct payment on presenting his Exchequer bills would adopt the roundabout process of getting them paid by presenting them in liquidation of some claim on the part of Government for duties. What I propose is that during the last six months of the year for which Exchequer bills shall have currency by law, those Exchequer bills shall, at the option of the holder, be receivable in discharge of any claim for duties or taxes due to Her Majesty This is an important provision, and which I hope the Committee will adopt, though not without being fully alive to its nature and bearing. The effect of this, as we have now two issues of Exchequer bills in the year, will be as follows:—We issue Exchequer bills in the middle of March and again in the middle of June. The holder of the March Exchequer bills will be able to claim that they shall be received by the Government in satisfaction of any duties owing to the Government on and after the middle of September, and until the middle of March next, when the full twelve months will have elapsed. The holder of the June Exchequer bills will be able to make the same claim in the middle of December and at any period following the middle of December until the middle of the following June. The effect of this will be to give to these bills the character of six months' bills; and thus bankers and others who hold Exchequer bills of both issues—of March and of June—will have the power of liquidating a portion of those Exchequer bills once in every quarter. In March they may have their March Exchequer bills paid off in money, and in June they may have their June Exchequer bills paid off in money; and after the middle of September they may have their March Exchequer bills tendered and received in payment of duty, and after the middle of December and until the middle of the following June they may have their June Exchequer bills tendered and received in payment of duty in like manner. There is no doubt that the substitution of this arrangement for that now in existence is
1318
generally considered extremely desirable by those whose acquaintance with monetary matters makes them authorities on the subject. I mean to say that their opinion is that enabling Exchequer bills to be tendered at shorter periods from their issue than at present would be of very considerable value to the commercial world.
Then, the question to be considered is whether the change is attended with any prospect of inconvenience to the interests of the State? Have we, for example, any reason to fear that at periods when the revenue may be running short, the presentation of these bills in lieu of money may produce a pressure on our resources, and even put the Government in some danger with respect to the power of fulfiling their engagements? I shall be quite prepared to present to the Committee, if they should desire it, a statement, showing what was the practical working of the system at periods when Exchequer bills were presentable in payment of duty after a short period. About the conclusion of the war, and, perhaps, so late as the public of 1825, no doubt, considerable quantities were so presented; but I am not aware that there is on record any case of public inconvenience in consequence—I mean fiscal inconvenience in connection with the revenue, or the engagements to which the revenue was pledged. After a very considerable experience it may be said that there is no disposition, even when money may be scarce, to make such a use of the privilege as would be inconvenient to the public. In point of fact, there are certain natural limits within which the privilege can be used. For example, at present Exchequer bills are held, and they are likely always to be held, not quite exclusively, but almost exclusively in London, and they could not be presented on a very large scale for duty except in London or one or two other places. Then, again, there are certain duties only for which, from the nature of the business in connection with them, Exchequer bills could be tendered in satisfaction. They might be tendered, no doubt, in satisfaction of Customs' duties. But the amount of Customs' duty received in London was from £200,000 to £250,000 a week; and therefore the effect of an operation of this kind would be that, while it might be for a particular holder a most convenient arrangement, and thus tend to increase confidence in the bills, it would at the same time be extremely difficult to

1319
imagine a use of Exchequer bills in this Way on any scale so extensive as to produce inconvenience to the revenue.
But that is not the whole of the case, because I am not going to propose to take away the power now enjoyed, and necessary to be employed, of sustaining the Exchequer bills in the market by raising the rate of interest. I call the attention of the Committee to the provision I make by the second Resolution to the effect that the interest on the bills shall be payable by coupons half-yearly, instead of yearly—and that in every way is a most useful provision. At present there is great inconvenience in regard to Exchequer bills with respect to the payment of the income tax. The mode of dealing with Exchequer bills in the open market is by selling them with so much of the interest on them as was due up to the period of the year already elapsed. The interest is a penny or so a day, and, though the collection of the interest in that way is very easy and simple, any attempt to deduct the income tax from the interest so reckoned is, on the contrary, most inconvenient. The consequence is that the income tax is as the year passes continually disturbing the price of Exchequer bills and forming an element in their purchase or sale. It is impossible entirely to get rid of that difficulty. It applies in a degree to all public securities, but the difficulty is more than doubled with respect to Exchequer bills from the fact that the interest is paid only once, at the end of the year, and the income tax of the I whole year is deducted from that interest. Therefore, it will be an advantage to the holder that the interest should be paid half-yearly, for he then would not be so long out of his money as at present, and it would be a still greater advantage to the State. The power of raising the interest, by which, according to established practice, the Finance Minister is enabled to rectify the position of the Exchequer bills, will henceforth and entirely be exercised by raising the interest, not for an unexpired period of twelve months, but for a period of six months. The interest will be fixed from time to time. The minimum rate of interest will be guaranteed at the commencement of each year for twelve months; hut when the interest is raised the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be able to raise it for half a year, instead of the whole year. Under these circumstances the Chancellor of the Exchequer
1320
will be more free than at present to raise the rate of interest, and the average increase in the charge for interest will probably not be more than one-third what it is at present.
I have been obliged to trouble the Committee rather unmercifully with a number of these points of detail, because I hold it to be my duty not to study that which is agreeable and convenient as matter of rhetorical discourse, but to aim at conveying a clear and full statement of all the particulars that bear upon the discussion of a measure of very considerable importance. I shall be happy to give any supplementary explanation which any Member of the Committee may be pleased to ask of me, and in the meantime I have only to add that I propose to make a slight alteration in the wording of the last two Resolutions, with a view to greater clearness of expression and better order of arrangement.
Perhaps, however, before I sit down, I may be permitted to say a few words with respect to the notice given by the hon. Beronet the Member for Evesham (Sir Henry Willoughby). The hon. Gentleman has given notice of a sixth Resolution, to which it will not be possible for me to agree at the present moment; but which, on the other hand, I should be sorry to oppose, and which I hope to be able to induce him to withdraw, upon grounds of which, I think, he will see the sufficiency. His Resolution is intended to prevent the Commissioners of the National Debt from funding Exchequer bills without the consent of Parliament. To the principle of that Resolution I need not say I am entirely friendly, because in a Bill which I had before the House last year I included myself a provision for that purpose. But a provision which I may think very convenient in a measure relating to the general finance of the National Debt Commissioners would not be convenient in the measure now before the House. In point of fact, it is too much and too little. When we have to pass a Loan Act we do not provide in that Act what shall be the particular powers of those who are to deal with the loan in the public market, and the Resolution of the hon. Baronet ought to be embodied, not in a measure relating to what I may call the status of Exchequer bills, but in one relating to the powers of the National Debt Commissioners. The Resolution would be too narrow. The Bill which will be founded upon the Resolutions of

1321
this Committee will be limited to one description of Exchequer bills, those that are called Supply Exchequer bills—those that are habitually bought and sold in the open market; and it would be most inconvenient to mix up with Supply Bills, which are a security known to the public, legislation relating to other descriptions of Exchequer bills, the very existence of which as such is absolutely unknown to the public, but which are of great importance in regulating the financial transactions of the country. The other descriptions of bills to which I allude are Deficiency Bills, and Ways and Means Bills. My hon. Friend is aware that by far the most objectionable kind of funding power possessed by the Commissioners of the National Debt is the power of funding Deficiency and Ways and Means Exchequer bills, because the practical effect of its exercise is that deficiencies in the current revenue of the year are converted into part of the funded debt of the country without the knowledge or intervention of Parliament. It would never do to leave that power in existence, and at the same time to deal with a minor and less important power in a measure of this kind. But what I wish to do is to appeal to the hon. Baronet to reserve himself for another occasion. If there is a strong feeling in the House I should not much object to deal with his Resolution in a separate Bill, but I think we should wait until we are dealing with the general question of the finance of the National Debt Commissioners, which would be the appropriate time for discussing the proposition submitted by my hon. Friend. After a Government has proposed by Act to part with a certain power, the representative of that Government would not feel himself justified in using it, and certainly I should not think it right, after having asked Parliament to put this power away altogether, to put it in exercise without coming to Parliament beforehand. But that is a matter in which the hon. Baronet will exercise his own discretion, though, as I do not believe there is any practical difference in the Committee upon the point, I should be sorry to be obliged to put a negative upon his Resolution on account simply of its inapplicability to the present occasion. With these observations I have only to put into the hands of the Chairman the Resolutions of which I have given notice, and which are as follows:—
"1. That it is the opinion of this Committee the principal monies of Exchequer bills is-
1322
sued undert he authority of Parliament, together with the interest thereon, which may become payable from time to time, shall be charged upon and paid out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom, or the growing produce thereof.
"2. That the interest on such Exchequer bills shall, during their currency by Law, be payable half-yearly by coupons, and shall be paid at the Bank of England.
"3. That an option shall be given at the expiration of each twelve months to the holders of Exchequer bills to be paid the principal monies of all Exchequer bills held by them, and such principal monies when paid shall be paid to the holders at the Bank of England; and that all Exchequer bills not so paid off from time to time shall have currency for the next twelve months following the date of such option.
"4. That, when such Exchequer bills shall be paid off, the Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury may issue the like amount of Exchequer bills to replace the Exchequer bills so paid off.
"5, That all Exchequer bills shall be receivable for Duties granted to Her Majesty during the last six months of each year during which such Bills shall have currency by Law."
MR. W. WILLIAMSsaid, in his opinion, one of the propositions of those Resolutions would add greatly to the convenience of the holders of Exchequer bills, and also save some expense to the Government, and they would not necessarily be called upon for the renewal of the whole amount. This was one of the propositions recommended by the Committee on Public Moneys which sat four years ago. He would ask whether the right hon. Gentleman would take an early opportunity of carrying out the recommendations of that Committee.
MR. ALDERMAN SALOMONSsaid, that the monetary interest in the City viewed the propositions of the Chancellor of the Exchequer as a great improvement on the present system with regard to Exchequer bills; but, at the same time, he thought he might venture to apply to the case a homely maxim, by saying that the Chancellor of the Exchequer "shut the stable door after the steed had been stolen." Nothing could be more useful than a review of the causes which had led to the depreciation of Exchequer bills. Perhaps the origin of the evil might be found in an error made so far back as 1853, when it was proposed to reduce the interest on Exchequer bills to a rate below that at which they would float in the market at a premium. One of the results of that mistake was that about £3,000,000 of Exchequer bills were presented at the Treasury to be paid off instead of renewal. Since that time there had been an increase of floating securities of another description,

1323
such as East India debentures and railway-debentures to a large amount, and the low rate of interest on Exchequer bills offered no inducement to parties to hold those securities as heretofore. A reasonable expectation might be entertained that, with the privilege now conceded of paying duties after six months in Exchequer bills, that security would again rise in the estimation of capitalists. When the present discouraging state of the money market should have passed away; and when that improvement had taken place they would no longer witness the mortification with which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had to acknowledge that so large an amount of Exchequer bills were presented for payment as to occasion inconvenience to the public. He believed the disposition of the monied interest was at all times to aid the Treasury and not at any time to distress the Government by presenting their Exchequer bills for the sake of gaining a few shillings. He was persuaded that, if the Chancellor of the Exchequer took care that the amount of Exchequer bills were not unduly increased beyond what the market could fairly bear, the Resolutions now before the Committee would open a new era in the history of public credit.
MR. CAYLEYsaid, he had no doubt that the proposed changes would add to the popularity of Exchequer bills. One good effect of the measure would be, that in times of pressure or panic it would enable bankers to afford more accommodation to their customers by paying in Exchequer bills to the Treasury instead of cash. One question he should like to put to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He had stated that at the end of six months, during the first year of their currency, Exchequer bills might be paid into the Treasury for taxes; but he had not explained in what position holders would be if, after the expiration of the first twelve months, they wished to pay them for taxes to the Government.
SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEwished to ask a question of the right hon. Gentleman. It was proposed to give the holders of Exchequer bills an option to receive their money at the expiration of the year; would there be a corresponding right on the part of the Treasury to call in the Exchequer bills at the same period? Suppose the holders did not want to get their money, but wished to hold their bills, their doing so might be a disadvan-
1324
tage if the Government desired to call in a portion of them. The result would be that, at the option of the holders of Exchequer bills, the whole of the unfunded debt would be kept up from year to year. Inconvenience might also arise from a considerable portion being paid in at a particular period. Was it not possible that some arrangement should be made by which Government might at the expiration of the year of currency call in a portion of the Exchequer bills which it might be convenient to the Government to discharge instead of leaving the whole amount in the hands of holders? It was perfectly true that at present Exchequer bills were only held in London, and that the payments in respect to the Customs here were not large; but with this new privilege given to Exchequer bills it might become worth while at Liverpool and other large ports to hold them, and half a million of money might be paid in that form, which would lead to considerable inconvenience. Then, when they were paid in, what was to become of them? Was there to be a power of re-issuing them?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERmade an observation across the table which could not be heard:—but
SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid, in that ease his objection fell to the ground, and he had no further question to ask.
MR. THOMSON HANKEYsaid, he thought the holders of Exchequer bills had a right to expect some benefit of the kind held out by their Resolutions at the hands of the right hon. Gentleman, for he believed no previous Chancellor of the Exchequer ever so much damaged the character of Exchequer bills as he had done in 1853, when he reduced the interest so low as 1d. Formerly the Exchequer bills were one of the most desirable securities a banker could hold. They were the nearest approach to a bank-note, with the advantage that it bore a certain rate of interest. The Resolutions would be regarded by the monetary interest as a boon; but he was at a loss to see the great advantage of the arrangement to the finances of the country. The Chancellor of the Exchequer thought that the Exchequer bills should no longer be taken as part of the charges for the year; but that was merely theoretically—for practically the Bills were never paid, and they were really a part of the permanent debt of the country. They were now to be placed on the Consolidated Fund; and, were, there-

1325
fore, not nominally but avowedly part of the permanent debt. It was true that the holder had the power to demand payment at the end of twelve months; but again practically this would be checked by the Chancellor raising the rate of interest; or if the repayment were actually made, a similar amount of bills could be re-issued. He objected to a permanent addition to the national debt with out the express consent of Parliament. He agreed with the hon. Baronet the Member for Evesham (Sir Henry Willoughby) that it was very necessary to place on record the opinion of the House that these Bills should not be funded. It was perfectly true that the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not intend to fund last year; but he might alter his mind in six or twelve months, and he hoped the hon. Baronet would not withdraw his Resolution. It did not matter that the Resolutions only proposed to apply to Supply Bills. They might deal with the Deficiency Bills afterwards. It was a very strong measure to fund Deficiency Bills, and he did not think the Chancellor of the Exchequer would propose to do so; but some measure of the kind might be resorted to unless it were forbidden by Act of Parliament. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said that Exchequer bills would be kept up at their price, because they would be payable as duties, and the amount in the market would be pro tanto reduced; but, formerly Exchequer bills were kept up by the variations in the rate of interest which, he thought, was the only legitimate way of meeting the case. If a large portion of the bills were to be paid in as duties it would 'affect the Supplies for the year. As far as the public were concerned, the matter would be very nearly as broad as it was long, and to the bankers Exchequer bills would be a convenient security in which to invest their money. But he had expected that the Chancellor of the Exchequer, when making any alteration with reference to Exchequer bills, would have abolished the absurd rule, according to which interest on them, unlike all other securities, was computable de die in diem. Not only was this productive of inconvenience in rendering an increase in the rate of interest, whenever such took place, applicable to very large sums; but the very least addition that could be made—that of a farthing daily—amounted in the year to 7s 6d.; whereas it was obvious that an increase of 2s. or
1326
3s. would be sufficient. He could not believe that there was any additional facility in calculating interest at a daily instead of a yearly rate; at least he was certain that the latter was generally employed by those familiar with banking business.
SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYsaid, he should not have taken the liberty of adding a Resolution to those proposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, if he did not believe that it went to the very marrow of a question which the right hon. Gentleman had approached with his usual ability—the best mode of sustaining the credit of Exchequer bills;—and the whole of the five Resolutions of the right hon. Gentleman wont to that point. He thought, however, that the Resolution he proposed to add touched more deeply on the question of the estimation in which Exchequer bills were to be held than all the rest of the Resolutions. It was quite true that the credit of Exchequer bills received a sudden blow by changes in the rate of interest; but the market was much more prejudicially affected by the operations on a great scale carried on in complete privacy by the financial Minister of the day. Those operations were carried on in complete secrecy, and it appeared to him that until they passed a measure enacting that all Government transactions in Exchequer bills should take place in the public market, and in the face of day, they would accomplish little or nothing. As far as the Resolutions were founded upon the Report of the Committee of Public Monies, he entirely concurred in them. Mr. Goulburn, who, according to his judgment, was an honest Chancellor of the Exchequer, placed on the table, so long back as 1844, a paper showing that silently and secretly, by the action of the Government, Exchequer bills to the amount of £7,000,000 had been converted from unfunded into funded debt. The House of Commons knew nothing about it; but year after year this change from unfunded to funded debt took place. The last two operations were the transfer, in 1853, of a sum of £383,000 Exchequer bills to the funded debt when Consols were 99¾, and that of a sum of £791,000 when they stood at 97¾ but the House of Commons knew no more about it till the periodical returns were issued than the greatest stranger to financial operations. Who could doubt that these transactions struck at the very foundation of the credit of Exchequer bills? Therefore, he trusted that the right hon. Gentleman

1327
would say he would deal with that matter in a measure during the present Session. If he could receive an assurance of that nature, he should be delighted to withdraw his Resolution; because he admitted at once that the question cut very deep— much deeper, perhaps, than the Committee was aware—because he could show that the funded debt of the country had been greatly increased—not merely changed from unfunded to funded debt, but positively increased—by the operations which took place in 1838, 1839, 1840, and 1841, in which the additions were respectively £600,000 in 1838, £500,000 in 1839, £500,000 in 1840, and £600,000 in 1841, so that the House of Commons of that day was placed in the ludicrous position of having nearly £2,000,000 of public debt created without their knowledge. What could they do, he asked, when such circumstances as those were possible, to sustain the credit of the Exchequer bill market, unless they struck at the very root of such transactions? What had been done in former years might be repeated in 1861, and what he wanted was the introduction of a very simple measure, which would relieve the system of one of its greatest difficulties. He wished to know, also, to what extent coupons were to be added to the Exchequer bills, and on whom, in the case of forgery, the loss would fall; and how the £1,000,000 Exchequer bills to be consolidated were to be dealt with. The Consolidated Fund was such a mythical thing that one hardly knew what it meant, and a great deal of misconception existed about it. He did not agree with his hon. Friend (Mr. Hankey), in hoping that the computation of the interest of Exchequer bills would be altered from the present mode, which was very convenient when there was a large sum out at short dates. He hoped, however, that the right hon. Gentleman would give him an affirmative answer upon the more important question as to whether he would bring in a measure to the effect that Government should not fund any Exchequer bills without the previous consent of Parliament.
MR. GLYNhoped some distinct understanding would now be arrived at by the House with regard to this subject. He entirely agreed with the hon. Baronet (Sir Henry Willoughby) that nothing so much affected Exchequer bills, and, indeed, all public securities, as concealed operations; and that the funded debt of the country should not be increased without the express
1328
consent of Parliament. With regard to the calculation of interest, knowing that in every other species of security a per annum calculation was practicable, he thought it might easily he effected in the case of Exchequer bills. He was anxious to express his opinion that to Mr. Masterman, the late Member for London, they were indebted for some of the best suggestions on the subject now before the Committee. He would also observe that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had this Session introduced two measures which were calculated to effect a great reform in the public business, and that these financial improvements were appreciated in the proper quarter.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that he had to express his great gratification at the general approval of the substance of his Resolutions by the Committee. He had been asked by the hon. Member for Lambeth whether he intended to give effect to the recommendations of the Committee on Public Monies? He had the pleasure of stating to the House on a previous night that the Bill was in preparation which would give effect —-not absolutely to the whole of the recommendations of that Committee, but to the more important ones. With reference to the relative merits the per diem and per annum computation of the interest on Exchequer bills he was fully open to conviction, but hitherto he had not been able to ascertain what the general wish was. That was the first time he had heard the question introduced, and if it were shown that it was the general wish he should have no difficulty in making a provision in the Bill, to alter the mode of computing. His hon. Friend the Member for Yorkshire (Mr. Cayley) had asked how would the holder of an Exchequer bill stand with respect to the right of offering his bill in payment of taxes after the expiration of twelve months? The general effect of the change would be, not exactly, but in a considerable degree, to convert this instrument, at the option of the holder, from a twelve months' into a six months' instrument. The holder would become after six months—that is, in the middle of September—entitled to tender his bill in payment of taxes, and would continue so entitled until the expiration of twelve months —that is, till the middle of the following March. At the expiry of the twelve months he would have the option of taking his bill in money; if he did not take

1329
money, then a new term commenced exactly the same as the former. It would thus be capable of liquidation through the medium of taxes at the expiration of six months; of being presented for money at the expiration of twelve; but at the commencement of every new year it would be capable of commencing its course afresh. The hon. Member for Stamford (Sir Stafford Northcote) had asked whether, as the holder of the bills had an option of tendering them, there would also be a corresponding option on the part of the Government of calling in those Exchequer bills? He (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) did not intend to include in the Bill any proposition of that kind. It would be very much at variance with the mode in this country of contracting public loans of another description. It was a constant part of the practice of foreign Governments in raising money; but he thought the machinery necessary for determining what portion of the bills should be actually liable to liquidation at the option of the Government would not be satisfactory to the public, and he did not sec that there was any strong financial reason for such a provision. His hon. Friend feared there might be inconvenience from those bills being paid for revenue in considerable amounts; but he begged him to observe that at the same time that the Government gave to the holder the power of tendering them for revenue at the expiration of six months, they not only reserved the whole power now possessed of inducing the holder to continue to hold them by raising the rate of interest, but, if necessary, greatly increased the efficacy of the instrument by enabling the Finance Minister to raise the interest for the unexpired part of the six months—that is, for three months instead of nine. Thus there would be a threefold power—the power of reissue, by arrangement with the Bank of England or otherwise; the power of allowing the bill to become extinct if the public convenience allowed it; and likewise the power, which was the only one now enjoyed—and a cumbrous one it was —of keeping it afloat by raising the rate of interest. With respect to what the hon. Alderman (Alderman Salomons) remarked as to the injury done to Exchequer bills in 1853 by reducing the rate of interest, the fact was, the two things came closely together, but he did not think the facts had been quite accurately stated. He admitted that the effect of reducing the rate of in-
1330
terest from 1½d. a day to 1d.—for the whole question was whether the rate should be 7s. a year higher or lower—was to produce a diminution out of all proportion to what could be supposed. But still it did not cause the presentation of a single bill for payment. It was on the 15th of September that the March bills were reduced to 1d. a day, and on the arrival of March not a bill was presented. He granted that in June £3,000,000 were presented for payment; but there had been a most extraordinary and important change in the state of the money market between March and June, marked by the regular and progressive decline in value, not only in Exchequer bills, but in other public securities, and among other changes a great rise in the rate of discount at the Bank in June. But that was a history to enter into which would require a great deal of detail. However, he might say that the usual amount of unfunded debt before 1838 was from £24,000,000 to £30,000,000 of Exchequer bills; and it was at the period after 1838 that the greatest reduction took place, because it was then reduced from £24,000,000 in 1839 to £18,000,000 in 1842. It continued £18,000,000 to 1853, and then, for the moment, it was reduced by the presentation of £3,000,000 for payment; but those £3,000,000 were issued in January, 1854, and it was the fact that no great change took place in the amount of Exchequer bills between 1842 and the outbreak of the Russian war. He quite agreed with the observations of the hon. Baronet (Sir Henry Willoughby) with regard to the funding of Deficiency Bills and Ways and Means Bills, and he had attempted to embody his views on the matter in a Bill of last year. He could not, however, give any positive pledge as to the time when he might be able to deal with the matter; but he was entirely of the opinion which he had expressed many years ago, that those were powers which ought to be taken away; and that being so, the hon. Baronet ought to retain his right to press the subject if he thought him (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) slack. Again, he desired to express his acknowledgments to those Gentlemen who had spoken, for the favour with which they had received his propositions.
THE CHAIRMANhaving read the Resolutions;
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that he proposed that the

1331
fourth and fifth Resolutions should be transposed, and verbally altered; and the Resolutions thus amended, were severally put from the Chair and agreed to, as follow:—
1. Resolved,
"That the principal monies of Exchequer Bills issued under the authority of Parliament, together with the interest thereon, which may become payable from time to time, shall be charged upon and paid out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom or the growing produce thereof."
2. Resolved,
"That the interest on such Exchequer Bills shall during their currency by Law be payable half-yearly by coupons, and shall be paid at the Bank of England."
3. Resolved,
"That an option shall be given at the expiration of each twelve months to the holders of Exchequer Bills to be paid the principal monies of all Exchequer Bills held by them, and such principal monies when paid shall be paid to the holders at the Bank of England; and that all Exchequer Bills not so paid off from time to time shall have currency for the next twelve months following the date of such option."
4. Resolved,
"That during the last six months of each year for which any Exchequer Bills shall have currency by Law, such Exchequer Bills shall be receivable for Duties granted to Her Majesty."
5. Resolved,
"That, when any Exchequer Bills shall be paid off or received for Duties, the Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury may issue the like amount of Exchequer Bills to replace them."
SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYsaid, that after the explanations of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he would not move the additional Resolution that stood in his name, namely:—
"That the Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt shall not fund any Exchequer bill or bills without the consent of Parliament previously obtained for such funding."
House resumed.
Resolutions to be reported To-morrow.
On the Motion that the House go into Committee of Supply,

ITALIAN POLICY OF THE GOVERNMENT.

  OBSERVATIONS.—FIRST NIGHT.
  MR. HENNESSY:—Sir, it is rather more than six years ago since an eminent statesman brought into this House a measure for the employment of foreign mercenaries in the army of the Queen. That
  1332
  was an unpopular measure; and to regain the popularity he had lost by introducing such a Bill this eminent statesman turned political informer against some Members of the Government to which he then belonged. On a later occasion that eminent Statesman was sent to the Congress of Vienna. The British public kept their eyes on his proceedings, and it was alleged that while there he truckled to Austria. It was alleged that he who was so bold in the House of Commons had trembled in the councils of Germany. No failure could be more humiliating and complete than the failure of this statesman in his first essay as a diplomatist and Foreign Minister. He returned to this country only to be condemned by the public and to be deserted by his Colleagues. He was received with silence by the House, he fell into political disgrace, and sought for shelter on the other side of the Alps. He went to Italy to study Italian affairs. On his return he denounced the Government of the noble Viscount because it did not interfere enough in Italian affairs, and he said the time had arrived for an active interference in Italy. It was not enough for him that the British Government, through its Plenipotentiary, Lord Clarendon, had, without the smallest pretext, dragged the Papal Government and the Administration of the King of Naples before the Paris Congress, and invited Italian subjects to revolt; the eminent statesman to whom I am referring counselled more active measures. On the 14th of July, 1856, he made a Motion on Italian affairs, and took that occasion to announce the policy which, were he in office, he would feel bound to pursue. Here are his words—
  "If we confine ourselves to notes and paper protestations I am afraid that we shall altogether lose the confidence of the inhabitants of that peninsula."
  He went further; he gave a description of what might be done along the seaboard of Italy by a British squadron. Indeed so technical and elaborate was this portion of his intervention speech that old jokes were cracked as to his capacity to command the Channel fleet. His Motion was not very fortunate. After a long debate it was negatived. Thus, his second essay in Foreign Affairs proved as unsuccessful as his first. This eminent person, who became unpopular by his strenuous advocacy of foreign mercenaries, who lost public confidence still further by the trea-

  1333
  cherous betrayal of his Colleagues, and whose European policy had involved him in well-merited disgrace — this eminent person is now Her Majesty's Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. In that capacity he has had an opportunity of carrying out his views on the Italian question. These views are now embodied in despatches which he has presented to Parliament, and on which he demands the criticism of this House. Sir, my criticism of the noble Lord's despatches is this: I find in them the old blots that characterized his foreign policy when he was not Secretary of State; the same apparent truckling to Austria, and the same morbid desire for active interference in Italy in promotion of Piedmontese policy. I believe—and I think I shall be able to show the House—that his submissive attitude to Austria is not genuine. As long as Austria is powerful he will cringe before the statesmen of Vienna; but should a moment of weakness and disaster come no one, I feel confident, will be quicker than the Secretary of State in taking advantage of that weakness and consummating the disaster. But this is a question for the future. At present we have to deal with the Piedmontese policy which he has done so much to promote. The noble Lord studied Italian affairs at Florence. There he became intimate with gentlemen belonging to the Piedmontese party, and it was mainly on what they told him that he formed his views upon Roman and Neapolitan policy. I would not complain of this Piedmontese policy if it were consistent with our interests, with the interests of the people of Italy, and with our own honour. But this is very far from being the case.
  I am ready to take up the issue raised by Her Majesty's Ministers. The noble Lord has invited comparison between the results of the government of Piedmont and those of other portions of Italy. That issue I accept. This time last year the Chancellor of the Exchequer, in the peroration to his financial statement, dwelt upon the connection which existed between good financial systems and good government. How far has Piedmont fulfilled the requirements of such a test? How far has Count Cavour exhibited those indications of good government which, in illustrating the progress of England, the late Sir Robert Peel so often noticed? Sir Robert Peel always held that the state of our public finances, the mode
  1334
  in which we raised the revenue, the various evidences furnished by trade and commerce as to the production, accumulation, and wise distribution of capital, formed the best tests of good government. The noble Viscount opposite (Lord Palmerston) and the leading members of his Administration have followed the example of Sir Robert Peel. In dealing with the question, then, I not only at once accept the issue of the Government, but I will deal with their issue according to the general method adopted by the Government in similar cases. And what is the testimony on which I am about to ask the House to decide this issue? Again, I have recourse to the Government. I will adduce the evidence of our own officers abroad, of officials employed in the office of the noble Lord (Lord John Russell), and Piedmontese evidence, to show that such a test failed in the case of Piedmont.
  What was the state of the Piedmontese finances under the administration of Count Cavour? The Piedmontese policy might be said to have commenced in 1848, and my remarks will be principally directed to the period subsequent to that date. On this important question of Count Cavour's financial arrangements, I will first road to the House the opinion of an ardent Piedmontese Signor Angelo Brofferio. This gentleman represented Genoa for many years in the Turin Parliament, and within the last few weeks he has been elected simultaneously for two places, Castelnuovo-nei-monti, and Castelmaggiore. He is known to many Members of this House, and his authority will not be questioned either here or in Turin as far as it derives weight from great honesty and ample information. He says in a work just published—
  "Count Cavour's financial arrangements were of the worst kind. He exhausted the tax-pavers without enriching the treasury. He levied enormous taxes on all petty industry, retail trade, and small properties. He put odious duties on the chief necessaries of life; he taxed thirst, hunger, cold, fever, and death; by means of his inheritance duty, he found out the way of mulcting oven debts, the tears of the orphan, and the grief of the widow; while leaving untaxed the measureless wealth of the exchange, and the bank notes, and bills of exchange, &c, he levied a duty on debt, which is poverty; without extorting a farthing from credit, which is wealth. His tax on patents, or permission to exercise industry, trades, and professions, pressed most heavily on the struggling poor, while unfelt by the rich. In the tax on paper factories, for example, the first machine paid 400 francs yearly, every other only 100."

  1335
  This valuable testimony of a Piedmontese Member of Parliament is well sustained by the official agents employed under our own Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. I beg leave to refer the House to a very valuable and interesting Report made in 1860, by Mr. West, the British Secretary of Legation at Turin, in which he called the attention of Her Majesty's Government to the state of Piedmontese finances. For the special object I have now in view, the rate at which the national debt of Piedmont has grown will be best understood by considering the increase of the total interest in two periods—namely, from the year 1819 to 1848, and from 1848 down to the present period. During the first period the interest on the national debt amounted to 8,400,000 f.; and in the second period, during which the Piedmontese policy had been at work, the addition made to the interest of the debt was 71,000,000 f., and the interest on the national debt at present is 80,000,000 f. The actual figures are instructive, as showing the rapid increase year by year after 1848:—Before the revolutionary period the amount of interest on perpetual debt, 5 per cent (1819), was 2,416,032 f. 31 c.; terminable debt, 5 per cent, 2,867,327 f. 17 c.; ditto, ditto (1831), 1,500,000 f. State obligations, 4 per cent (1834), 1,620,000 f. After the revolutionary period, the amount of interest on terminable debt, 5 per cent (1848–51), was 3,044,036 f. 23 c; ditto, ditto, 4 per cent State obligations (1849), 1,194,120 f.; terminable debt, 5 percent (1849), 43,430,398 f.; State obligations, 4 per cent (1850), 1,080,000 f.; terminable debt, 5 percent (1851), 5,416,250 f.; ditto, ditto, 3 per cent (1853), 2,310,386 f.; interest of debt on Island of Sardinia, 959,347 f.; 59 c.; interest on British loan (1855), 2,000,000 f.; interest on otherdebts, 286,278 f.; Treasury bonds, 1,000,000 f.; interest on deposits, 23,000 f.; life annuities (debito vitalisio), 10,157,411 f. 59 c. Mr. West had further stated that in the space of three years the interest payable on the national debt had been nearly doubled: and he added—
  "In a financial point of view, therefore, the policy which actuated the Piedmontese Government in entering into the late war was a desperate policy, as it could only be by the acquisition of lucrative provinces that it could hope to restore the shattered condition of its finances."
  May I ask the attention of the House to this important statement? The noble
  1336
  Lord's Secretary of Legation at Turin (a well-informed gentleman and an English official) tells us that the finances of Piedmont are in a "shattered condition." But, more than this, he speaks of the "desperate policy" of the Piedmontese Government. He tells us, as plainly as language can convey it, that the late war was not undertaken, as the noble Lord and as Count Cavour would make us believe, through pure patriotism, but was undertaken as a piece of public robbery to repair, by the acquisition of lucrative provinces, the broken fortunes of Piedmont. On the subject of national burdens, Mr. West in the same Report says—
  "An increase of taxation will be necessary, because money must be found to meet the ever increasing scale of expenditure, and that recourse will eventually be had to an income tax seems probable. The pressure of taxation is chiefly felt by the landed proprietor. The house tax and land tax, which amount to more than one-sixth of the whole revenue, are severely felt, and more especially the latter, as far as Piedmont is concerned, by the small proprietor. The equal distribution of property tends greatly to impoverish the large estates, and although the value of land for purchase may not have decreased, still its division amongst so many proprietors causes a want of capital for agricultural purposes, which increases the burden of taxation. These remarks, however, apply to Piedmont Proper."
  Now, as the challenge of Her Majesty's Government was to compare the results of government in Piedmont with those of any other parts of Italy, he would accept that challenge, and draw the attention of the House first to the government of the Grand Duke of Tuscany. Up to the year 1852 the public debt of Tuscany amounted to £2,470,000; but that amount had been accumulating for years. It now amounted to nearly £4,000,000; showing, therefore, an increase of nearly £1,500,000 in two years. But these two years have been years of annexation. Even in that brief period the poison of Piedmontese policy has been able to corrupt the Tuscan finances.
  It was not enough, however, merely to show the shattered state of the public finances in Piedmont. According to the return of our own Board of Trade, the computed value of the merchandize imported into the United Kingdom from Sardinia was, in 1855, £247,000; in 1856, £238,000; in 1857,206,000; in 1858, £135,000; showing a progressive decline. But the reverse was the case with respect to the Two Sicilies. Taking the same return and the same years,—

  1337
  in 1855 the imports into the United Kingdom, were £1,281,000; in 1856, £1,500,000; in 1857, £1,597,000; and in 1858, £1,700,000; showing a progressive increase. This is the account given, be it remembered, in the returns of the British Board of Trade. What would the late Sir Robert Peel, who so often expatiated on such facts as these in describing the progress of England, what will his great pupil (Mr. Gladstone) say of this evidence? I hope living statesmen will do what I have no doubt Sir Robert Peel would have done; I hope they will frankly acknowledge its conclusiveness and its value. In preparing this evidence as regards Piedmont, our officials complain that they labour under a difficulty, arising from the extraordinary neglect of public statistics by the Government of King Victor Emmanuel. Indeed that Government, in this respect, is one of the most backward in Europe. Members of this House who get their Board of Trade returns every month will appreciate the complaints of our officials in Sardinia. In 1858 Mr. Erskine complained that "every branch of statistics was neglected by the Sardinian Government," and Mr. Brown made the same complaint in 1860. He says—
  "For the information in my Report I am indebted to the kindness of merchants and other persons versed in commercial and industrious affairs, since, with the exception of the little pamphlet published this year under the care of the Chamber of Commerce, Genoa, nothing has been published on the trades and manufactures of this place since 1818."
  Turning to that part of Mr. Consul Brown's Report which describes the shipping trade in the most important—in fact, the only important—seaport in Piedmont, I find that the number of British vessels which entered the harbour of Genoa in 1853, were 312; in 1854, 290; in 1855, 260; in 1856, 231; and in 1857, 234; showing a serious decline. Of Sardinian vessels the number appeared to have been, in 1853, 1,484; 1854, 1,424; 1855, 1,446; 1856, 1,283; and 1857, 1,222; also showing a steady decline. A similar declension was shown in the quantity of the cargoes year by year. On this decline in British trade the consul remarks—
  "The arrivals of English vessels have considerably diminished in number, and the tonnage has not increased. The proportion of British sailing vessels arriving from England is smaller compared to the number of ships arriving under foreign flags. I can easily conceive that the
  1338
  Genoese merchants, preferring to encourage the shipping of their own country, would charter Sardinian ships in preference to British; but I regret to say that I am informed by some of them that they find it answer better to take up vessels of some other foreign flags, especially Swedish and Norwegian, rather than employ British ships. The cargoes most generally brought by foreign vessels coming from England are iron, coals, and coke."
  Taking the principal articles exported to England or British possessions from Genoa in 1855, the total amount in francs was 6,800,000, but in 1857 it was reduced to 5,500,000. Mr. Gray had also delivered a valuable report regarding the island of Sardinia. It resembled the account given of that island by M. Thouvenel in one of his conversations with Lord Cowley, only that Mr. Gray entered into more detail. M. Thouvenel, it would be recollected, said the French Government could not think of taking the island of Sardinia, because it was "in a state of barbarism which was a disgrace to its Government." Now, Mr. Gray gave statistics, and from those it appeared that the number of vessels from all nations arriving was 803 in 1854, but had fallen to 574 in 1857. Of course, by far the largest trade of the island of Sardinia was with the main land, of Piedmont. In 1854 the coasting vessels entering Sardinia numbered 531; in. 1857 they had fallen to 331. The tonnage in 1854 was 56,000, but it had fallen in 1857 to 46,000; showing again, therefore, throughout a steady decline. In former times this island carried on an extensive trade with Tunis, Hanover, Turkey, Belgium, and Portugal; but the whole of this trade was now extinct. Our own exports thither of cottons, woollens, silk, hardware, sugar, soap, and paper had fallen off. Mr. Gray showed that the import as well as the manufacture of paper had also declined. Her Majesty's Government had just entered into a convention with Sardinia on the subject of copyright in books. Had they inquired before they did so they would have found the number of books exported from Sardinia had been declining for years, and had now reached its minimum. It was also important to notice that the decline in trade was more especially observed to be in those branches which mostly employed native capital in Sardinia. Mr. Gray in the course of his Report made the following remark, and it was one of a most important character:—
  "If the island (Sardinia) were progressing in the way of improvement, and developing its re

  1339
  sources, the effect of these serious blows might be mitigated; but this is not the case. Agriculture, the hope and stay of the island, is perfectly stationary, both in practice and extent; nay, indeed, I fear the latter has even decreased from the want of hands to support it. From 1851 to 1857 there were taken for the conscription 10,622 of the finest youths of the land, and of these 1,200 only are supposed to have returned to their homes, thus leaving the island, with its scanty and sickly population of barely 79 to the geographical square mile, minus 9,400 able bodied men, chiefly composed of those of which the island is so much in need to meet its industrial requirements, and to develop its rich but dormant resources."
  The island, therefore, had been robbed of the flower of its youth and able-bodied labour, and agriculture was stationary. The effect of this Piedmontese policy had been almost to destroy the commerce of England in that part of Europe; for the labouring population had been taken away and employed in a predatory warfare, and Count Savour's financial and fiscal system was so bad that it had completely crippled commerce and trade. Now, I will compare these facts and figures with those relating to other parts of Italy; and here, again, I will refer only to the Reports of British officials. The accounts from our officials in other parts of Italy offered a striking contrast to those of our consuls in Piedmont. With regard to the dominions of the Pope, Mr. (now Lord Lyons) wrote thus in a despatch from Home, May 29, 1857—
  "Commerce has been advanced, the revenue has increased by a very considerable reduction of import duties. The value of land has risen, and agriculture is flourishing."
  Just the reverse of Piedmont. Again, on the same subject, Mr. Lyons wrote—
  "The continued rise in the value of landed property in the Papal States of late years is very remarkable; but still it does not seem to have reached its limit. Agriculture is undoubtedly making considerable progress."
  And, again—
  "There is a marked and progressive amelioration in the state of the finances."
  He also says—
  "By the edicts of the 1st of June, 1855, and the 7th May, 1856, great reductions were made by the Papal Government in the Customs' tariff, and a great increase in the receipts followed; and that a further reduction had been carried into effect by the edict of the 26th of March, 1857."
  As the policy of the Emperor of the French with reference to the States of the Church is at this moment attracting European attention, it is interesting to confirm
  1340
  our own Minister's highly favourable account of the Papal dominions by referring to the official information in the possession of the Imperial Government. In a despatch of the 14th of May, 1856, the French envoy thus addressed the French Minister for Foreign Affairs—
  "In the Papal States new buildings are very numerous, commercial relations are extending, large profits are being realized in agricultural and financial operations, great fortunes are being made, and an appearance of prosperity strikes the eye of the least observant."
  Again, returning to British authorities, I find that the last Report (dated 1860) is from M. Gaggiotti, British Consul in the Papal States. He says that
  "The mulberry plantations are increasing throughout the country, and the capital employed in the produce is very extensive."
  M. Gaggiotti added that the British manufactured goods, cotton and linen yarns, and iron bars, mainly supplied the wants of the country, with almost no rivalship; and in the same Report he gave statistics which showed that in the five years from 1854 to 1858 inclusive—the period when our trade with Sardinia was declining'— the value of British imports increased nearly 100 per cent. The exports from the Papal States to the United Kingdom during the same period increased in a still greater ratio, being nearly 200 per cent more in 1858 than in 1854; and it was stated that the general foreign commerce exhibited, in the total number of tons exported into the States of the Church, an increase of from 80,000 in 1854 to 113,000 in 1858. These are important facts. May I ask the House to boar in mind the sources from whence they are obtained. They are not the result of my own observation; indeed I would not presume to trouble the House with evidence so little worthy of attention in a momentous discussion of this kind. Nor are they facts taken from sources friendly to the Governments of Central and Southern Italy. Nor are they the assertions of anonymous writers. I have obtained these facts in the records of the British Foreign Offices and the British Board of Trade. They have been compiled by British officials residing in Italy, they have been compiled by direction of the British Government; and, in accordance with a Resolution of this House, they have been presented to Parliament by the noble Lord himself (Lord John Russell).

  1341
  Sir, I am sorry that I cannot leave this part of the subject without making another charge against the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. I have to charge the noble Lord with deliberately concealing a very important despatch. In March last I gave notice of an address to the Queen for the Reports of our Consuls in Tuscany, Sardinia, the Papal States, and the other States of Italy. That notice was placed on the books of the House; the noble Lord read it in print, and in a private interview he told me that, though he had no objection to give all the information I required about Tuscany, Sardinia, the Papal dominions, and the other States of Italy, he should like the Motion to be made general, calling for the Reports of all the consuls who had reported since 1858. Of course I acceded to the wish of the noble Lord; I amended my Motion accordingly, and after the rising of Parliament, a blue book containing the Reports was presented to Members. I looked at that blue book with great anxiety, because I expected to find in it an important despatch from Tuscany. I found no such despatch; however, when I went to Italy during the recess I found all the merchants of Leghorn were complaining of the distress which had fallen on them in consequence of the annexation. When the announcement appeared in the Piedmontese papers that the fiscal system of Sardinia was to be applied to Tuscany in place of the enlightened and liberal system of the Grand Duke, they all took alarm. In the despatch which ought to have been presented in accordance with an address voted by the House, but which the noble Lord kept back, important details were given. In particular our consul called the attention of the British Government to the fact that one of the most important branches of British trade consisted of the import into Tuscany of a sort of woollen cloth mixed with silk, which flourished under the enlightened system of the Grand Luke, but which had been destroyed by the Sardinian tariff. It formerly was imported into the Tuscan States at a trifling ad valorem duty; but, as the result of the annexation, the Sardinians had put on a specific duty; and the duty charged on the material as silk was far beyond its value. That branch of British trade had, therefore, been extinguished. The peasants relied upon that material for a large portion of their clothing, but they were now entirely deprived of it. These
  1342
  interesting facts, I am sorry to say, have been concealed from the House. The Chamber of Commerce of Leghorn on the 15th of November protested against the Sardinian system, and sent to Count Cavour a very strong remonstrance against his fiscal system. English captains trading to Leghorn complained not only of high duties, but of the greatly increased detention by Customs' functionaries since the annexation. Now they were detained twenty-four hours at Leghorn as a minimum, in consequence of the custom-house regulations, instead of, as formerly, being able to transact their business there in half an hour.
  But I have also to call the attention of the House to another document which has been concealed from the House by the noble Lord. More than twelve months ago, that is on the 1st of March, 1860, the young King of Naples made some important fiscal reforms in the tariff of the Two Sicilies. The British Government concealed the details of this reform from the public and from Parliament. I am not in the habit of quoting anonymous articles from newspapers in this House, and in doing so now I venture to hope that the House will see I am compelled to do so because the Secretary of State has not given us the information which he was bound to supply. Whilst I was on the Continent I received a copy of the Newcastle Journal, in which I read with great surprise the following statement—
  "The article, which we re-publish below from the Daily News of Thursday, contains the startling intelligence that, on the 1st and 15th of March and 1st of May last, the King of Naples signed three decrees by which free trade was established throughout his dominions. This intelligence is startling because of the date of these decrees. More than six months ago this was done, and the English people now learn it for the first time. The Daily News further states that copies of these most important decrees were duly forwarded by our Minister at Naples to the Foreign Office in London, but that they were not published. A notice only was inserted in the Gazette to the effect that important reductions in the Neapolitan tariff had been made. Parliament was sitting, but the subject was never alluded to. At the same time, Mr. Elliot's despatches, containing accusations against the King and Government of Naples respecting the internal affairs of the country, were published in hot haste. These despatches were re-published immediately at Naples and Palermo as incentives to the insurrection then preparing. The Daily News, aghast at the suppression of news, so intimately concerning and so important to the English people, by the Government, endeavours to account for their conduct by attributing it to indifference to the interests of trade."

  1343
  The Daily News, hon. Members are aware, is a leading organ of the Liberal party in England, and one of the ablest advocates of the Revolution abroad. The remarks of the Daily News—I quote from the journal of the 11th October, 1860—are, therefore, to say the least, not those of an organ inimical to the noble Lord. On these concealed reforms, it says—
  "By virtue of three royal decrees issued successively on the 1st and 16th of March and the 1st of May last, the whole body of import duties in the Two Sicilies was remodelled after the manner of Peel and Gladstone."
  And, again, it says—
  "Our Civil Service costs just three times today what it did twenty years ago; yet it is too much trouble to have a copy made of a dozen pages of schedule affecting the commercial interests of hundreds of thousands of people who toil to be able to pay the taxes on which our easygoing administrators live. Here and there throughout the country the keen eye of speculation has looked through its private spyglass, and discovered that on the quays of Palermo and Naples the old customs' barricades had been taken down, and that consequently it would pay to send out an assorted cargo of attractive wares to meet or to create a new demand. Keen-eyed speculation in such case will probably meet its reward. But is this the way in which national trade ought to be carried on? Or is this the use of a special department ironically said to be devoted to the care of popular industry?"
  The Daily News says that the noble Lord (Lord John Russell) concealed all this important information because he was indifferent to the interests of trade. I take a different view of the noble Lord's policy in this business. Indifference to the interests of truth, when such indifference suits his purposes, is a more likely explanation of what he omitted to do in this case; as I think it is the explanation, also, of what he actually did before Europe in other cases.
  Sir, I think I have now shown the House that, as far as regards those tests of prosperity to which the late Sir Robert Peel and his great pupil were in the habit of appealing, Sardinia stands lowest in the scale; while Tuscany, Naples, and the Papal States are, on the contrary, in a most satisfactory condition. To take a more selfish view, Piedmontese policy has most seriously enfeebled British trade; and, as far as the island of Sardinia is concerned, it has destroyed that existing with Belgium, Hanover, and other countries.
  This brings me to the question of the noble Lord's intervention in support of Piedmontese policy. The noble Lord con-
  1344
  tended that he had left the Italians to settle their own affairs, and that his policy towards Italy had been one of strict neutrality. But in a despatch, dated 22nd of May, he went out of his way to extract two definite promises from Sardinia; first, that she would not attack Venetia, and next, that she would refrain from attacking the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies. In this I hold that the noble Lord has—instead of leaving the Italians to settle their own affairs—been guilty of two acts of direct intervention, and, as I hope to be able to show the House, most treacherous intervention. Count Cavour declared that the Government of the King would abstain from any act of aggression towards Austria as long as that country loyally acted in the same spirit; and he made a like declaration, with a like reservation, respecting the Kingdom of Naples. But Count Cavour contemplated the possibility of the very attack which afterwards took place, for he declared that Piedmont, like the British Government, was unable to repress "manifestations of sympathy" with the people of Sicily. The King of Sardinia afterwards broke his promise and interfered in the affairs of the kingdom of Naples. I will not now utter any condemnation of my own, but point to the despatches of the noble Lord, in which it was laid down that Victor Emmanuel—
  "Having given his Royal word to maintain peace and friendship, was not at liberty to set his obligations at defiance, and to make a wanton aggression on a neighbouring Sovereign."
  When the King of Sardinia violated his word and invaded the States of the Two Sicilies the King of Naples was strongly intrenched on the Volturno; and it has been truly stated by all the correspondents that but for the arrival of the Sardinian troops King Francis would have stopped the progress of Garibaldi, and put an end to the invasion. Now let the House remember that in the same despatch in which he gives the promise that Sardinia would not invade the Two Sicilies, Count Cavour actually contemplated the case of a Garibaldian attack on Naples. The promise was made with a full knowledge of what was going to occur; but, as I am now anxious to keep the attention of the House on the one point of deliberate breach of faith by King Victor Emmanuel, I note Count Cavour's anticipation of the future merely to prove that no attack or proceedings of what he called the "Italian populations" altered the case as regards the promise ex-

  1345
  tracted by England, and given solemnly by Sardinia. That pledge was communicated by the noble Lord to the King of Naples. That young Sovereign relied, of course, on it; for though the character of Count Cavour and his Royal Master would not command much faith, the guarantee given by the fact that it was a pledge obtained by the British Government, and communicated from one party to the other by the Secretary of State, was sufficient to induce the King of Naples to believe that the pledge would not be broken. Well, what took place? Victor Emmanuel broke his word. Before all Europe he committed an act of the blackest treachery, and he openly violated, not, indeed, for the first time, a deliberate engagement. From one end of Christendom to the other the infamy of his conduct was denounced. Statesmen of all religions and of all countries condemned him. England alone came to the defence of the Royal pirate. The noble Lord defended the conduct of Victor Emmanuel.
  I pass by the defence of piracy and plunder; that is trifling compared with the noble Lord's defence of deliberate falsehood. And what is the excuse given by the noble Lord? He says the Neapolitans were up in arms against their Sovereign. I deny it. But even if they were, what has that to say to the solemn obligations incurred and violated by Sardinia? Now I can give the noble Lord a little piece of testimony on the question that he thinks so important—the number of Neapolitans in arms against the King. Are hon. Members aware of the extent of the assistance which Garibaldi received from the Neapolitans themselves? Writing from Naples on the 10th of December, The Times correspondent stated "I am assured, on undoubted authority, that the number of Neapolitans who had enrolled themselves under Garibaldi was less than 100." The writer could not be suspected of sympathy with the King, for he had done much to promote the success of the revolution. "There were many applications for commissions," he says, "but the common soldiers were under 100." The Times itself, in a leader published a few days after the letter of the correspondent on December 14, 1860, stated that "the revolution was made for the Neapolitans rather than by them." This was also proved by the fact that Garibaldi telegraphed to Victor Emmanuel for 14,000 men. There are Members of this House who were
  1346
  present at the battle, and who can tell us that it was decided by the Pied-montese who came up in the middle of the day. Among the foreigners who fought for Garibaldi there were some whose interference the House would, I am sure, regret. Garibaldi could boast of having captured two cannons. But were they captured by the 90 or 100 Neapolitans who were fighting against their King? Through the courtesy of the Admiralty I am in possession of a document which stated who did capture them. Having addressed a letter on the subject to the Admiralty, I received a reply, in which I was informed that, in consequence of certain statements which had appeared in the public papers the department had written to Commander Forbes, of the Renown, for a report. In that Report the commander stated that the cannon were, in the first instance, captured by English Garibaldians; that, subsequently, when they were about 200 yards from Santa Maria a necessity arose for assistance, and that the English sailors having been called on they gave it, and dragged the cannon into that place. Thus, it seems, the only cannon taken from the King were taken by foreigners. I earnestly ask the attention of the House to the proclamation issued by the Sardinian general, Cialdini, after his entry into the Neapolitan dominions. In that famous document he said, "Publish the fact that I shoot all peasants that I find in arms, and that I give quarter to troops only." This announcement had a peculiar significance when taken in connection with the fact that the King of Naples had formed volunteer corps among his people, and that while less than 100 had joined Garibaldi, thousands had been found ready to fight for King Francis. Our Minister at Naples condemned the cruel proclamation of the Sardinian general. He said it was "barbarous;" but very different was the language of the Foreign Minister at home. In his extraordinary despatch of the 27th of October the noble Lord asked, "Did the people of Naples and the Roman States take up arms for good reasons?" My answer to that is, that they did not take up arms against their Sovereigns at all. Arms were taken up against them by the foreigners who invaded their dominions. Again, when the noble Lord asks, "Did the people take up arms for good reasons?" I refer him, for an answer, to those sanguinary orders of the day issued by the Sardinian generals, in which they

  1347
  said that any of the people found with arms in their hands would be shot without quarter. The Sardinian generals evidently thought, with the noble Lord, that the people did take up arms; but the Sardinian generals also differed from the noble Lord, for they shot the people who presumed to do what the noble Lord thinks so praiseworthy. In fact, speaking generally, none but foreigners took up arms against the King of the Two Sicilies. The noble Lord went on to say that the Italian revolution "had been conducted with singular temper and forbearance." The "temper and forbearance" exhibited was evidenced by the proclamation to which I have just alluded; by the atrocities committed on the subjects of the King of Naples; and by the breach of faith and international law of which Victor Emmanuel had been guilty in invading the territories of a Sovereign with whom he was diplomatically at peace. I received a letter from an English gentleman residing in Italy in which he stated that thirty-six villages had been totally burnt in the Abruzzi; many hundreds of men in one day were shot summarily as rebels; and an anormous amount of public and private property was destroyed. The writer further said that he had seen hundreds of both sexes dragged out of monasteries and convents and forced to fly from before the troops of the King of Piedmont. In the journal edited by Alexandre Dumas, a Piedmontese officer writing of his exploits said:—
  "A brigand fell into my hands by chance, but instead of having him shot I tied a cord round his head, and, by the aid of a piece of wood, I squeezed his temples until the brain protruded from his head."
  Let us not forget that this is told by a Piedmontese officer, and told in the journal of A. Dumas. This is not an authority friendly to the cause of the King of Naples. The Nomade, a revolutionary journal in Italy, mentioned the act of a certain village having been sacked by order of the general, and that the mayor, a priest, and two other individuals who alone had remained in it were shot, because, as the writer observed, "everybody without exception in this country are brigands." I find in another Italian journal the following statement:—
  "Flying columns organized were charged to burn without distinction all the towns of the brigands, to force them into one point, and then to exterminate them as Napoleon I. once did under similar circumstances."
  1348
  Now, here I beg to remind the House that when Napoleon I., in 1808, sought to combine the powers of Europe against England, Pope Pius "VII. positively refused to enter a war, especially one against the British Government, from whom, he said, he had never received the slightest offence. The consequence was that Napoleon confiscated his States and declared Italy to be united. In six years afterwards, when the policy of Pitt and the sword of the Duke of Wellington had annihilated the Bonaparte regimé, the population of the Peninsula repudiated united Italy, and, with rejoicings, declared their heartfelt allegiance to the legitimate sovereigns. Sir, it was stated by way of excuse by our Government that one of the Piedmontese generals was dismissed from his command on account of the proclamation which he issued. The proclamation to which I refer was issued by General Pinelli on behalf of the King of Sardinia, before the 27th of November, for we had an account of it in this country at that date. It declared that every person found with arms of any description would be shot, and it went on to say that "the same penalty would be immediately applied to those who, by words or acts, shall insult the arms of Savoy." The arms of Savoy! What had the peasants of South Italy to do with the arms of Savoy—with the arms of a French province sold by Pinelli's master to the Emperor? Any one could understand how the peasants would not know the meaning of the words "insulting the arms of Savoy." Well, that proclamation was issued before the 27th of November. When was Pinelli dismissed? Not until the second or third week in February—nearly three months after the issuing of the proclamation. And what was he doing in the meantime? Why, in one village of the kingdom of the Two Sicilies he shot, within a fortnight, 123 persons. That was in the first fortnight after the issuing of the proclamation. As to what he did subsequently at Teramo I am unable to tell the House. In another village he took seventeen prisoners and shot them on the steps of the church. The scene was described in a letter by a friend, in which he said—
  "The poor women were like crazy while the executions were going on. Some cast themselves at the feet of the soldiers imploring mercy; others ran shrieking out, tearing their hair; while others fell apparently lifeless, utterly overcome by the frightful scene."
  "When Pietro Bordoni was placed in position

  1349
  Rosina Manera broke through the ranks and folded herself round him as a guard, but she was torn away after much struggling, and with such violence that one of her wrists is irremediably injured. At Barete the people were at first quiet, contented themselves with pinning on the white cockade, and crying from their houses "Viva Francesco II!" but when the Piedmontese proceeded to take down the Neapolitan arms they lost their self-command, and in the most imprudent manner they rushed in threes and fours on the troops, and, of course, immediately lost their lives. The remainder fled, and then the place was sacked, the wine butts set flowing, and every sort of destruction ensued."
  "Their next assault was on Cugnano—here a terrific scene took place: for Carlo Daniele aroused the people in a fiery harangue, and had time to organize a firmer resistance. He, with the principal males, took possession of the inn; from its front windows they fired on the Piedmontese, who returned the fire with equal vigour. The inn had another entrance at the rear in a back lane by means of which the other inhabitants supplied Daniele and his little band of heroes with powder, ball, missiles, and fresh men to take the place of those at the front windows who fell under the shot of the invaders. At length the Piedmontese discovered the entrance at the rear, forced it, and took prisoners those within, though not until the battle had been carried on from room to room and stair to stair. The house streamed with blood from the roof to the cellars, and is completely riddled with balls, as I myself saw two days ago; and I do not believe any process will ever clear it of the blood-stains which everywhere mark it in the interior. At other places the same fearful slaughters were committed. In one place the village priest heard that several of his people were to be shot, and, against the wishes of his brother and sister-in-law, went to plead for them to the Piedmontese officer."
  "He fervently entreated him to have mercy on the unfortunate men. He begged him to remember that they were ignorant people, who had never before heard of Piedmont; who only knew and loved Francis II., who, seeing his arms effaced, believed they were bound in duty to avenge the insult. The colonel did not even answer him, but had him taken prisoner, and ordered that he should be shot with the others, which was done in the next hour."
  I have called attention to these atrocities and proclamations because the noble Lord must have been acquainted with them at the time that he wrote his despatch, in which he spoke of the singular forbearance and temper which had been displayed by the Piedmontese.
  The next point noticed in the despatches to which I am anxious to solicit the attention of the House is the nature of the elections; and, without travelling over the same ground that had been traversed so well in "another place," by the highest authority in England on Italian affairs—I mean Lord Normanby—I feel bound to mention a few facts, in order that hon.
  1350
  Members may be in possession of the real state of the case concerning those elections. Southern Italy is a very populous place; I hold in my hand a return from an official journal of the numbers who voted in the elections in Naples. Elections are matters in which men generally took an interest, and I may incidentally remark that 6,400 electors of the county of Cork voted the other day for a Conservative candidate who was returned mainly upon the ground of disapproval of the noble Lord's foreign policy. This was the largest number that ever voted at an election in Ireland. It was clear that the people of Cork took a different view of the policy of the noble Lord from that held by some Reformers in this House. But in South Italy, Liborio Romano, Minister of the Interior, was a candidate; and 119 persons voted for him; and he was at the head of the poll. And how many voted for Castellano in South Italy? Why, twenty-nine. And for Rossi? Sixty. And other members of the Sardinian Parliament were elected by a smaller number of votes. Universal suffrage had been much talked of. But what was to be said of the universal suffrage where 119 persons elected a minister in a population of 990,000? In Parma, Tuscany, Modena, and the Papal States the same results of annexation characterises the elections. How many voted at Piacenza? The poll-book contained only 1,213 names out of a numerous population. These were all that were allowed to vote. Well, a contest took place; and how many voted? Why, sixty-eight. The loyal inhabitants of Italy took no part in the elections. They have acted wisely. They looked for better days; and I am sanguine enough to think they are not far distant. Then at Milan 239 voters returned a member to Parliament. At Florence, 144—Florence, once so gay and nourishing, is now a deserted town, and one of the most miserable places in Italy. Signor Saffi, a professor of Italian at Oxford, went to Italy, and stood for a town in Naples. There were only 162 votes in Ruoti, and he obtained 154 of them. One would fancy he ought to be elected, but he was not in the Piedmontese Parliament. And how did this occur? Signor Saffi was a Republican and a friend of Garibaldi; and Count Cavour resolved that he should not sit. A scrutiny was consequently demanded, and the scrutineer, one of the new Piedmontese officials, struck off 121 of his votes. The result was that the Republican

  1351
  was not admitted to his seat in Parliament. This would give the House a notion of the value to be attached to the elections so often referred to by the noble Lord. The figures I give from the Piedmontese elections in Tuscany and Parma are taken from the official returns, Atti Uff. della Camera dei Deputati, tornata del 4 Ottobre, 1860, No. 139, p. 541.
  The same noble Lord once threw out a taunt against the King of Naples for not having defended his kingdom—
  LORD JOHN RUSSELL: No, never.
  MR. HENNESSY: I am glad to hear the noble Lord say "No." But at any rate members of the Government had said so; Members of his (Lord John Russell's) side of the House had said so, and the public press associated with his views had said so. Now, why did not the young King attempt to reconquer Sicily? Why did he not defend Naples? I will tell the House. It has been asked why did he (the King) not go across to the island of Sicily when Garibaldi had possession of it; and he has been called a poltroon for not going. "Why not show some pluck and spirit? Why did he not retake the island from Garibaldi?" The noble Lord knew why. In one of his (Lord John Russell's) despatches to Sir James Hudson the noble Lord said—
  "The proposal made by the Government of Sardinia that no attempt shall be made by the King of Naples to reconquer Sicily seems to her Majesty's Government to be necessary."
  And in a subsequent despatch the noble Lord went on to say that—
  "Her Majesty's Government would have great satisfaction in finding that the special mission (from Naples) had been able to come to an agreement with Sardinia, and that no attempt should be made by the King of Naples to recover possession of Sicily without the consent of Great Britain."
  The consent of Great Britain! Was Great Britain a part of Italy? Was this leaving the Italians to settle their own affairs? What had Great Britain to do with the question whether the young King should be allowed to fight for his kingdom, or whether he should be forced into an "agreement" not to do so? Was not this interfering? Why should England make such a stipulation on one side or the other? This was evidently one reason why the young King did not regain Sicily. There was no such information as to why the King did not defend Naples, because we have no despatches from the
  1352
  noble Lord on that subject. We have, however, the words of the noble Lord in this House. The question was whether the young King should defend Naples or not? At the council board, sitting beside him, was Liborio Romano, a man who was then, as now, in the pay of Sardinia, and who is' one of the greatest traitors in Europe. The British fleet, the largest that ever entered the Bay of Naples, was at Naples; and the question arose whether the King should defend his capital or not. At his council board, sitting next the King, on the day when that question was discussed, was Liborio Romano. That man, who, I repeat, is one of the greatest traitors in Europe, was enabled by the conduct of the noble Lord to make fatal use of his treachery. It was the King's opinion that by going outside the town a short distance with his army he might fight with advantage. There were five general officers present. Four of them agreed with Liborio Romano in recommending the King to retire on the river, and not defend the walls of Naples; one alone—General Bosco—who remained faithful, concurred with his Majesty in thinking that it would be well to fight at once. How did Liborio Romano strengthen the advice he gave? By pointing to the despatches received from the noble Lord. The noble Lord at that crisis wrote "strongly remonstrating" against the repetition at Naples of what occurred at Palermo. The noble Lord had told the House on the 5th July, 1860, that he and the Cabinet actually considered the question how far the British fleet in the Bay of Naples might act with advantage against the King of Naples in case he did more than merely attack the mob in insurrection. But the noble Lord said they had found it impossible to send out to the Admiral such precise instructions as would be necessary to enable him to act. Was this "leaving the Italians to settle their own affairs?" Was this "strict neutrality?" Could any Member of the House deny, however prejudiced he might be, that this was an interference in Italian affairs on the part of the noble Lord? To prevent the young King from endeavouring to regain Sicily was unpardonable interference by the British Government. To remonstrate with him, or, as the Secretary of State said, to "strongly remonstrate" with the King about the defence of Naples was interference equally unpardonable.
  But the most active interference of all,

  1353
  that which stamped the proceedings of the noble Lord with the guilt of highly treacherous intervention in Italian affairs, was his conduct when the Sardinian army invaded the Papal States and the Neapolitan dominions. All the Powers of Europe protested against the King of Sardinia's forgetting his honour when he broke the pledge which he had given to England and to Europe not to attack the young King provided he made no attempt to recover Sicily; but the noble Lord alone came forward to defend that celebrated falsehood. Having extracted a solemn promise from Sardinia the noble Lord was the only statesman who defended its flagrant violation. That was an interference in Italian affairs, and an interference honourable neither to England nor to English statesmen.
  Against the army of General Lamori-ciere—to which the noble Lord had referred not in the most complimentary terms —the Piedmontese fought, and the Pied-montese alone. Not a single subject of the Pope took up arms except in support of the tiara. Not a single Roman was in arms against Lamoriciere. The noble Lord had spoken of foreign mercenaries, who, he seemed to think, ought never to be employed. But, in 1854, in moving the second reading of his Bill for allowing foreign mercenaries to be employed in the Queen's service, the noble Lord said this country had never achieved distinction without employing foreign mercenaries. He is fond of historical illustration, and he said:—
  "Did the Duke of Marlborough rely upon the English alone as the forces which should be brought into the field? I have here an exact account of the component parts of the 40,000 men contributed by this country. I find that the numbers of the English was 18,328, and of foreigners in the English pay 21,672. Was there, then, any of these feelings that foreigners were not to be employed? No such ideas never entered the minds of the great men who sway the destinies of England."
  But the Secretary of State is not the only British authority in favour of the policy of Monsignor de Merode. The noble Viscount, too, who was then entering into an alliance with the Evangelical party, said the employment of foreign mercenaries was "a consecrated system." He added that every country in the world had employed them, and that England ought to follow their example, and especially because she did not use the power of conscription. But there was
  1354
  another power in Europe that did not employ the conscription, and that was the Government of the Pope. On the 27th of March, 1856, the Sardinian Plenipotentiary, at the Congress of Paris, addressed a memorandum to Lord Clarendon, recommending that certain provinces should be taken from the Pope, and that the Pope should maintain an army of 8,000 men, composed one-half of natives and one-half of foreign troops, who would be sufficient to keep order at Borne without the presence of French troops. Mr. Lyons, who was acting practically as our Minister at Rome, recommended Cardinal Antonelli to have an army such as had been recommended by Count Cavour, and, writing home on the 24th of May, 1856, he said that,
  "With an adequate body of foreign soldiers in its own service, the Papal Government might dispense with the troops of France and Austria."
  Why should Mr. Lyons recommend Cardinal Antonelli to have an army of foreign mercenaries? Did not this advice, and the admonitions that accompanied it, amount to interference? But above all, when the British Minister held such language, was it fair, was it honourable, or honest, that the British Government should be the first and only Government to defend the Piedmontese invasion on the ground that the Pope employed foreign troops? Count Cavour, however, in September, 1860, writes to Cardinal Antonelli, pointing out that the Pope was employing an army of foreign mercenaries, and that they ought to be disbanded. General Cialdini, in leading his troops against General Lamoriciere, issued an order of the day, in which he told them he was leading them against a band of foreign adventurers who were animated by a thirst for gold, and a desire for pillage, and he called upon his soldiers to attack and disperse them "without mercy." Was that singular temper and forbearance? The Piedmontese general carried fire and sword through the Papal States because the Pope chose to employ some foreign troops, and yet it was the Minister of Piedmont who suggested that the Pope should form an army of 8,000 men, half natives and half foreigners. And that policy of employing foreign troops was approved of by the Minister of England. And the subsequent outrage on international law and on this policy is now approved of by the British Government. General Lamoriciere's army was attacked without a declaration of war, and,

  1355
  being greatly outnumbered, was defeated. Early in May, the noble Lord had instructed Mr. Odo Russell to ask Cardinal Antonelli whether he would give a pledge to act on the defensive. Cardinal Antonelli gave that pledge, but what was the conduct of the noble Lord when that pledge was violated? On the 21st of September, the noble Lord (Lord John Russell), writing to Mr. Fane, said:—
  "I did not enter (with Count Wimpfen) into the original justice of the claim set up by Victor Emmanuel to be the chief and the champion of Italy. But, having undertaken that task, I thought he was forced by necessity not to allow the fragments of the Italian Kingdom to be scrambled for by the followers of Garibaldi and the foreign mercenaries of the Pope. It was the business of the King to command and regulate the movement, to put down anarchy by force, and to substitute orderly Government for the oppression which crushed and the insurrection which convulsed the Italian provinces."
  Sir, I shall not condescend to discuss with the noble Lord the expediency of abolishing the temporal power of the Pope. I will only tell Her Majesty's Government that when the British Minister denounced the temporal power of the Sovereign Pontiff he insulted millions of the Queen's subjects, and he did so most wantonly. What cause of quarrel had he with the Pope? Why should he allow his party spirit and the traditions of Whig policy so far to guide his public conduct as to involve him in a course of vindictive enmity against a peaceful Sovereign for whom many millions of British subjects entertain feelings of deep respect, and, in his spiritual capacity, of strong attachment and devotion? Does the noble Lord think he will thus increase the loyalty of the Irish Catholics, or the loyalty of the Catholics of Canada, of the West Indies, and of Australia? I will not characterize, in the only language fit to describe it, the proposition of the noble Lord, that the Pope should place himself at the disposal and under the protection of the King of Sardinia. I will only say of that, and of the other proceedings of the Secretary of State against the interests and dignity of the Pope, that they all constitute acts of unjustifiable interference in Italian affairs.
  But of all these despatches now before us I know none which the public, if they are still animated by a spirit of fair play, will peruse with greater pain than that which was addressed by the noble Lord to the Court of France, with a view to promote the bombardment of Gaeta. The noble
  1356
  Lord alone of European, statesmen had not protested against the bombardment of Ancona. His animosity against the Pope, no doubt accounts for that. Ancona was bombarded by foreigners without a declaration of war. In that bombardment more women and children were killed in the town than sailors and soldiers on board Admiral Persano's fleet. The British Government looked on in silence. Capua was subsequently bombarded by the Piedmontese, and again the British Government remained silent. Let the House remember the energetic remonstrances of the noble Lord against bombardments at Palermo and Naples. Well, the bombardment of Gaeta from the land side began, and the bombardment by the Sardinian fleet was threatened. What did the British Government do? In pursuance of that policy of "systematic hostility" to the King of the Two Sicilies, which General Casella has lately charged (with undoubted truth) upon the noble Lord, the whole influence of Her Majesty's Foreign Office was brought to bear against the King. The noble Lord encouraged and enforced the bombardment of Gaeta. And who were those upon whose heads a Minister of England thus persisted in showering the shells and shot of the Sardinian fleet? In Gaeta was a young King gallantly defending his throne against foreigners; and sharing with her husband all the dangers of the siege was that royal lady—the princess of modern chivalry—she whose conjugal devotion, inflexible courage, and dignified endurance under the greatest of calamaties have made her—more than Queen of the two Sicilies—the example and the sovereign of her sex. The hostility of the British Government to these young monarchs seemed to increase with the growth of their misfortunes. In a despatch of the 13th of December, the noble Lord said "The King of Naples is free to retire, why does he not do so?" I will tell the noble Lord why he did not retire; it is because the King of Naples is a brave man, who had a great duty to discharge; and who imperilled his life fighting, as I shall ever maintain, for the independence of his people. That independence is now, for a time, lost. The people of South Italy are under the martial law of foreigners. I, who wish to see the Italians free, protest against the active interference of Her Majesty's Government, because it is an interference which has been as detrimental to the people as it has been to the Sovereigns of Italy.

  1357
  Sir, I have shown the House what has been the policy of the noble Lord. Is there an honest man in this country who will now believe the assertion of the Secretary of State that his policy is a policy of neutrality? I have shown you that he interfered to promote Piedmontese influence; that such interference has been alike injurious to Italian and to English interests; that he has compromised the independence of the Italian people; that he has contributed to destroy British trade and commerce. Has he destroyed nothing else? Where now is the great settlement of five-and-forty years ago? Where is that magna charta of European order that the sword of my illustrious countryman, and the best blood and treasure of this nation secured? The predatory army of Piedmont has torn the Treaty of Vienna to pieces. Where are now the alliances in whose stability the safety of the country, as we have always been taught, was so closely involved? Where are the great Conservative principles of Continental policy which were developed by the genius of Mr. Pitt, and enforced by the Duke of Wellington? Where are the once firm links of international law which bound the Sovereignty of England to the States of Europe? There was a time— not many years ago—when your alliances abroad would in an hour of national danger contribute to your safety. If, a few years ago, 80,000 Frenchmen were landed on your coast the bayonets of Austria and Russia would glitter on the Rhine, and a French occupation of London would involve an allied occupation of Paris. It is very different now. With your change of policy you have changed your allies. And yet, your fortifications, the augmentation of your fleet, and the hasty drilling of your Volunteers prove that the new alliance which you substituted for the others is not to live. In pursuing the phantom of Italian unity you have thus endangered your peace, your prosperity, and your national glory. Trade, treaties, and alliances have fallen away: more than all this, your policy has destroyed the confidence of European statesmen in the honesty of the Foreign Office. By your repeated defence of falsehood, and your treacherous conduct to the Sovereign Pontiff, and the young King of Naples, you have degraded British diplomacy and deeply stained the honour of England.
  MR. LAYARDsaid, he trusted the House would excuse him if he trespassed
  1358
  on its attention for a short period, of her had special reasons for speaking on this subject. He had long taken a deep interest in it, and he believed he knew something about it—more, perhaps, than the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken, though he would not detain the House at the same length. He thought the hon. Gentleman had omitted a very important element from his speech. The hon. Member had omitted all mention of the Italians and their feelings. As to his statements with regard to the state of trade in Italy he had said that to which he thought he should be able to give a sufficient answer. Another reason that he had for addressing the House was that the subject was an important one, and ought to be debated in that House. In Italy the deepest interest attached to what passed in that House. The people read every word that was spoken, their papers reported every speech that was made there—they looked to that House for counsel, for encouragement, and support. He did not think that the question ought to have been brought on in this form. On Friday he came down to the House prepared to move a definite Resolution, declaring that the policy which had been pursued by Her Majesty's Government was in accordance with the opinion of the largo mass of the English people, and was worthy of the honour, the interest, and the dignity of I this country. He reflected, however, that it might have been considered a party question, and he was most desirous that this subject should not be degraded to a party question. Although he knew from the cheering which he had heard that the general opinion of Gentlemen opposite was unfavourable to Italy, he was perfectly well aware that there were Gentlemen on that side of the House who had large sympathies and who did feel for that country. He would not say that those Gentlemen would have voted against their consciences, but he should not have liked to place them in the position of having to vote upon what might have been considered a party question against those with whom they generally acted. Upon these grounds he refrained from proposing his Motion. He hoped that in any remarks which he might make, and which might appear condemnatory of the Papal Government, he should not be understood to mean anything disrespectful to the Pope himself. He believed the Pope to be a well-meaning, humane, benevolent man, and that no one

  1359
  could better represent the Catholic Church as its spiritual head than he did. He said this because an impression existed in France, and elsewhere, that the policy of this country was very much guided by a feeling against the Pope as the head of the Roman Catholic Church. That he did not believe. Other feelings guided the policy of this country. We had always wished to see the Pope independent; the question was, how he was to be independent? Nor was he (Mr. Layard) without claims to be considered a tolerant man. When he sat in that House before he had always voted, and he would in the future vote, in favour of all proper concessions to Roman Catholics. He considered this question upon the much broader ground of the advisability of separating the temporal from the spiritual power of the Pope. He was frequently astonished at the line of argument pursued by hon. Gentlemen opposite who persist in connecting the temporal with the religious question. "Was there, he asked, a single man in Italy, eminent in literature, in art, in science, or in politics, who was at this moment in favour of combining the temporal and spiritual power of the Pope? They could not find one. [Mr. HENNESSY: Secchi, the greatest astronomer of the day.] Secchi was a Jesuit, and was bound, therefore, to support the Papacy. But to him he would oppose the Marquis D'Azeglio, not the celebrated novelist, but the well-known member of the Sardinian Senate who had supported the policy of what was called the religious party in Piedmont against that of Count Cavour, but who was well known to have declared against the union of the spiritual and temporal power of the Pope. What was the inference from this? Either these men, being good Roman Catholics, desired to separate the temporal and spiritual authority of the Pope, or they had ceased to be Roman Catholics. He believed that the former was the case. He asked hon. Gentlemen opposite, particularly the hon. Gentleman who had just spoken, from whom they derived their information? [Mr. HENMESSY: From the Government.] He did not get his information from the Government; he got it from Italy. He did not know whether the hon. Member spoke Italian, or from whom he got his information at Rome. Was it from the Monsignori, or the cardinals, who received him and showed him civility, or did he go to the hard-working middle classes of Rome
  1360
  —men who thought that they had something better to do than to support the beggars who swarmed around them and an effete ecclesiastical system—who had some regard for the honour and dignity of the country, and who wished to see its interests enlarge and its prosperity increase? In a very important protest addressed to the French Government by the leading men of the Liberal party in Rome they ask, with great force, this question—"Do the interests of Europe require that we should be considered as slaves bound to the soil and born to support the rule of the Pope which many declare to be necessary, but which no one would wish to see in his own country?" Would the hon. Gentleman like to see the Government of the Pope in his country? Had he been into the provinces, and into the small towns, or had he only been at Rome? Had he mixed with the people, or was it only from the nobility and the Monsignori that he had received his information? He was astonished at the ignorance displayed by hon. Gentlemen. He (Mr. Layard) was at Rome when the hon. Member for Dungarvan (Mr. Maguire) was there, and he saw how he obtained his information. He saw him led away in the morning by, he supposed he must call him, an illustrious Prelate, taken from institution to institution, and brought home at night; and then the hon. Gentleman who had seen no other part of the Roman States, and who could not speak a word of Italian, came home to England and wrote a book which was an authority upon the subject! In that book he praised the immense number of charitable institutions in Rome, the great patronage of what he was pleased to call education, the great hospitals, and the monastic institutions. Why, these were the curses of the country. The population of Rome had been divided into two equal parts, one of which lived upon the other. The hon. Gentleman visited the great political prison of San Michael, and he could hardly find words to describe the beauty of the place. He had described how the sunbeams fell into the courtyards, dwelt upon the beautiful looking-glasses with which the prisoners were provided, and said that he even felt some delicacy in intruding upon people who seemed so happy. He had told how in the courtyards there were little tables at which gentlemen were playing at dominoes, and it really only wanted some ladies in a particular costume to make a complete scene for Her Ma-

  1361
  jesty's Theatre. But he could have shown the hon. Gentleman as a reverse to this picture, one of the most ingenious artists in Borne who was now again in exile because he had designed the hilt of a sword to be presented to the Emperor Napoleon, the defender of the Pope! who was confined for three years in a cell in this very prison in which he could hardly turn, and who every hour of the night or day was called upon to answer to his name until his intellect gave way, and he was confined in a madhouse. He referred to Signor Castellani. He could have taken the hon. Gentleman to places near Rome where he would have seen men who had been in prisons of the most revolting description for years and years without trial, and without accusation. The hon. Gentleman said nothing in his book about the Inquisition—for the Inquisition still existed. It was true that the ingenious tortures of former times did not exist; but, considering the period at which we had arrived, the Inquisition was nearly as bad as ever. In travelling in the Marches and other parts of the Roman States he saw the edicts of the Inquisition stack up in all directions. These were edicts against blasphemy, which was defined to be reading any book which was prohibited by the Sacred Office, or knowing anybody—even their nearest relations—who had read such a book and not denouncing him. One of these edicts, which he got at Ancona, and which was signed by the Inquisitor General, after denouncing a penalty of imprisonment against sorcerers and dealers in magic art, concluded by prohibiting all intercourse, such as eating, sleeping, dancing and going to market together, &c, between Jews and Christians, and denounced against offenders the penalties mentioned in the Bull of Pope Clement VIII., entitled Cœca et Obdurata. While he was in the Roman States he read M. About's book, and he would venture to say, and would stake his reputation upon the assertion that, although its style and language were a little exaggerated, there was in it scarcely a statement which was not true in fact. A great deal had been said about the paternal Government of the Pope. Nothing on the face of the earth could be more mischievous, more calculated to oppress and degrade a people than this paternal Government so highly extolled in certain quarters. The paternal Government in the Roman States consisted of an inquisitorial interference in the affairs of families. It be-
  1362
  trayed itself in one place in the arrest of five young men who had obtained from the local authorities permission to bury one of their own kindred—a permission which was not ratified from Rome. That fact was stated by Mr. Odo Russell whom no one could accuse of partiality, for no-diplomatic officer could have conducted himself with more prudence and uprightness than Mr. Russell had done in Rome. The result was that he had conciliated every party, and was equally trusted by the Liberals and the supporters of the Papal Government. At Ferrara, some years ago, the Papal authorities-stopped the cultivation of flax—the staple of the province—because they thought that women engaged in one of the processes showed rather more of their extremities than was consistent with the ecclesiastical idea of propriety—the only excuse to be urged for the Pope was the fact that since 1849 the Pope had not governed a single acre of his own States; occupation by foreign armies had neutralized his temporal authority. There had been a French occupation of Rome, and an Austrian occupation of the Legations, while the rest of the Papal territories had been given over to the tender mercies of Swiss mercenaries. At Bologna there had been a combination—the most horrible that could be conceived—a combination of the stupid brutality of the Austrian soldier with the cunning cruelty of that of priests; and what was the result? During eight years of Austrian occupation no fewer than 186 persons had been put to death, of whom some were under the age of eighteen. It might be said that the Pope was not responsible for these things; but the fact was not so. Amid all these bloody executions it might fairly be expected that the Pope or his Government would have interfered on the side of mercy. The Pope did interfere once, but for what object? Was it to put a stop to these cruel practices? No. He interfered to give a dispensation to the Austrians to shoot a boy who was under the legal age at which the punishment of death could be inflicted. The subjects of the Pope in the Legations were taken before an Austrian court martial, both in criminal and civil causes; the trials were conducted in German, which was to them an unknown tongue, and the appeal was not to the Pope, but to an Austrian general at Verona and Mantua. He had himself seen a curious document

  1363
  taken from the archives of Bologna. It was a letter from Marshal Radetzki to the Papal Legate, in which the Austrian general replied to a proposition previously made to him by his correspondent. What that proposition was did not clearly appear; but Radetzky said, "If I were to adopt your advice with respect to the treatment of political offenders I should dishonour myself and disgrace my country." The people liked the temporal power of the Pope no more than the tyranny of the Austrians. Such was the state of things in Bologna that the last Papal Legate there wrote to his Government that there was not in the whole of the Legations a single man, woman, or child—with the exception, perhaps, of a few old men and women—who was well disposed to the Papal Government. Consequently, when the Austrian troops left Bologna they were accompanied by the Papal Legate, who found it impossible to remain behind, and the whole of the Legations passed at once into the hands of the people, who, considering what had occurred, behaved themselves with marvellous moderation. The case of Perugia was equally, if not more discreditable to the Papal Government. Perugia was sacked; men, women and children were slain with every circumstance of barbarity; and General Schmitz, who commanded the troops, was rewarded and decorated by the Pope. The only Italians engaged in the taking of Perugia wore a battalion of artillery. Their commander, in reporting the result of the operations to his Government, congratulated himself that his soldiers had taken no part in the massacres which had occurred in the place. The consequence was that he was turned out of his post. Another Italian officer who refused to act as a member of the infamous tribunal which was established after the sack was also dismissed the service. The hon. Member (Mr. Hennessy) had said something about the atrocities that had been committed in the Abruzzi, and a strange witness had been cited in the person of M. Dumas. He had often heard M. Dumas quoted as an authority upon fiction, but never as an authority upon facts; and some of the stories which that gentleman had printed in his journal had more the appearance of fiction than of fact. But he held a letter in his hand dated Feb. 18, detailing the grossest atrocities committed by the Papal troops. It was a fact which could not be denied that Col-
  1364
  lalto, a small village of about 700 souls, was given up to a general sack; that the medical man of the place, one Latini, was stabbed to death; that his sister, who ran to his assistance, was shot down; that the Sindic was mortally wounded; and that the heads of the Imperi family were miserably slain, and their little child of twenty months, transfixed by a bayonet, was carried in triumph through the streets. These atrocities were committed by a Bo-man general, who was decorated by Mon-signor do Merode for what he had done. He held in his hand a letter, dated the 1st of March, in which the writer described his own journey from Naples to Ancona. The writer stated that he met an officer in the Piedmontese uniform, walking and crying bitterly, who told him that his house had been burnt to the ground, and that his father had been killed, and cut into small pieces, which were thrown to the dogs, and were still to be seen in the street. A family in the same neighbourhood, suspected of Piedmontese sympathies, had fled for fear of the reactionary party, but had left behind them a youth of tender age. The poor child was seized by the brigands who tore out his eyes, and committed every manner of torture upon him before putting him to death. He had no doubt the hon. Member (Mr. Hennessy) would tell him that his authorities were valueless, he (Mr. Layard) said the same of the hon. Member's. He proposed to strike off the atrocities on both sides, for, in fact, they had nothing to do with the matter. Such great revolutions such as had taken place in Italy some acts worthy of condemnation were inevitable. Allusion had been made that evening to General Pinelli's proclamation. Now, he had been told on the best authority that the proclamation in question was condemned as soon as it was issued, and that two months were not allowed to elapse before its author was recalled. It had also been asserted that the Piedmontese Government continued a pension to the family of Milano, the man who attempted to assassinate the King of Naples; but the fact was, that the moment the Piedmontese Government obtained authority in Naples that pension was discontinued. By whom was that pension given? Not by General Garibaldi, but somebody about him who was utterly undeserving of his confidence, and without his consent. After all it was the condition of the country under

  1365
  the Roman Government which was the best proof of the badness of that Government. Was it true, or not, that the neighbourhood of Rome was a desert, and that the whole population was almost in a state of open rebellion? Mr. Russell, in a despatch dated November 11, 1860, said that the enthusiasm for unity and Victor Emmanuel was greater in the Marches and Umbria than in any other part of Italy; that his attention had been attracted by the growing national sympathies of the lower clergy; and that those sympathies were gradually making their way among the more enlightened Cardinals and Bishops. He could confirm that statement himself. Last summer he had visited one of the largest and best conducted Benedictine convents in Italy; and from its principal inmates he heard the strongest opinions expressed against the Papal Government. That was within a very few miles of Rome. After all, the people were the best judges of the character of the Government, and they had declared it intolerable, and had risen against it. The hon. Gentleman had quoted largely from documents purporting to be trade returns. He would rather give them the result of his own experience. A few years ago, he was at Ferrara and other places in the Marches and Legations, and found thorn deserts. Last year he revisited the same places, and the change was perfectly wonderful. The inhabitants seemed to breathe a freer and more invigorating air; everywhere there was activity and industry. Bologna had become the great centre of railways branching off in all directions. The Report of Mr. Otway, our consul general at Milan, which was among the printed papers, afforded a conclusive answer to the hon. Gentlemen's assertions as to the decrease of trade—
  "There can be no doubt whatever," says the report, "that since the annexation of Lombardy to Piedmont the trade between England and Lombardy has become more active, and will become more so still as soon as the political questions be set at rest, and that the prospect of the future becomes certain, and be not disturbed by fear of war or internal dissensions."
  In the same document the improved state of commerce was attributed to the moderate Customs' tariff introduced by the Piedmontese. The greatest increase in the importation had been in cottons. A man had only to use his own eyes in Italy to observe the contrast between the Papal and Piedmontese rule. While Piedmont was extending its railways on every side
  1366
  there were but two short railways in all the Papal States—one from Rome to Civita Vechia, the other from Rome to Fras-cati. A remarkable illustration of the way in which things were managed in the Roman dominions was to be found in the story that one of the very first trains on the Frascati line was stopped by brigands and the passengers plundered. Such an incident could have happened in no other country in the world. Turning, then, to Naples, the hon. Gentleman claimed sympathy for the young King of Naples who had shown at the last moment the courage of despair. But was no sympathy due to the hundreds of thousands who had been the victims of Bourbon tyranny? Could they forget the dungeons filled with prisoners who had never undergone trial, and all the other horrors and atrocities which had been committed for years and years in the kingdom of Naples? Or could they deny them? He would not describe the state of Venetia. He would only mention a couple of public notices to illustrate the rule of the Austrians. One was issued some four years ago, and sanctioned the whipping of two young girls for insulting the Austrian flag, for which a Bill was actually sent to the Municipality of Milan for the rods, vinegar, and bandages; the other was issued only last year, and threatened the people with fire and sword because some street boys had hissed a lady the dimensions of whose dress exceeded the limit approved by popular taste. But it might be said that abuses might be reformed. Reforms were impossible — the time for them had gone by. The murder of Count Rossi had been constantly dwelt upon as justifying the refusal of the Pope to grant reforms. The secret history of 1848 would, no doubt, some day become known; and, although it might turn out that the Pope was personally innocent, he believed that evil counsellors around him had roused the indignation of the people. Were any of the reforms promised by the Pope by the celebrated motû proprio of Portici upon his return to Rome ever carried out? Had not remonstrances been made with the Pope against his mode of government from that time to the present? And had not every remonstrance, no matter from what quarter, been treated with neglect or met with the usual answer, non possumm? The noble Lord the Foreign Secretary, in his search for a now form of suffrage, might, perhaps, be interested in

  1367
  one devised by the Pope. The Pope had promised that a municipal body should be elected; but the condition of the electors voting was that they should first have a certificate of good religious and political conduct from their parish priest. Up to the present moment no subject of the Pope, however highly educated, however intelligent, however distinguished in social position, could pass beyond the gates of Rome into the Campagna without a certificate from the curé of the parish, that he had duly attended sacrament and confession. Could they hope for reform in Naples under the Bourbons? No. The bitterest saying which was ever uttered by one man concerning another was drawn from Baron Poerio in the Piedmontese Parliament by the statement that the King of Naples was ready to grant a Constitution.
  "Governments," he said, "are founded on traditions. The tradition of the Neapolitan Government is perjury. The King has promised a Constitution. He -will show himself the legitimate successor to the throne by forswearing himself. But a man cannot forswear himself till he has taken an oath."
  Poerio's remark was as true as it was bitter. Neither was there any hope of reform in Venice. Some years ago the Venetian people might have been conciliated, but the atrocious, stupid misgovernment of the Austrians, who had spared neither friend nor foe, had alienated every Venetian. A Government and an army in which the Venetians were represented was essential to reform in Venice. But there was not a single Italian who would either accept office or bear arms under the Austrians. Again, in the Roman States the two chief elements of reform were the abolition of ecclesiastical privileges and orders and the transfer of the land to those who would cultivate it from those who kept it a desert. He had it on the highest authority that those two concessions could not be made; and, therefore, reform was impossible. It might be said that there were more laymen than ecclesiastics in office; and so, perhaps, there were, if they took account of all the paltry minor situations which the ecclesiastics would not condescend to accept. But all the high officers, all the legates, governors, Judges of the upper Courts, and so on, were either ecclesiastics, or at least, prelates who enjoyed ecclesiastical privileges. One of these privileges consisted in this, that if one person in a suit, whether
  1368
  amongst the plaintiffs or defendants was an ecclesiastic, that suit could be removed from the Civil into the Ecclesiastical Courts, in which corruptions and delays rendered it impossible to obtain justice. When, after the peace of Villa-franca, the Emperor declared there should be an Italian Confederation, every Italian felt justly indignant at the suggestion. The time for confederation had passed. There was but one Italian Prince. The King of Naples, the Grand Duke of Tuscany, and all the other petty sovereigns ruled through the support of Austria, and were mere Austrian tools; but they might have been Italian Princes at that moment had they conciliated the affections of their people by the concession of their rights, and discarded foreign aid and influences. Victor Emmanuel, although not of an Italian family, was the only true Italian Prince, because he was the only Prince who had refused to repose on foreign bayonets, and had relied upon the Italians themselves, and had devoted himself to the great idea of Italian unity and independence. He believed that King Victor was actuated by a noble ambition, and that the people were right in gathering round him. The motive of Victor Emmanuel's conduct need not be sought in urn ambition. He said, "I will be an Italian King. I have confidence in my subjects. I will give them liberty, and I will rely on them." When the Confederation, therefore, was proposed and rejected, the whole of Italy rallied round Victor Emmanuel. The hon. Gentleman talked about the voting, and said that the people had shown no interest in the elections. He denied it. He believed that the numbers quoted by the hon. Gentleman had nothing at all to do with the voting. They referred to the "Ballotaggio." He was in the north of Tuscany at the time of the voting. He saw peasants coming from all directions with priests at their head, and voting by ballot with the greatest calmness and moderation. There was no intimidation— no bribery, and he believed that not a single man gave his vote except with the entire conviction that he was voting according to the dictates of his conscience. He would take a higher test. Who were elected to the Parliament of Tuscany? Men who represented families which had existed for 500 or 600 years. Let anybody go through the historic roll of the great families of Tuscany, and he would find that not a single name of im-

  1369
  portance was absent from the list. The clergy, science, and art were also represented—and who was elected chief of the country during the interregnum? Ricasoli —a man of whom the country gentlemen of England might be proud. He was a man of large possessions, who had devoted himself to the improvements of his vast estates; who had come to England to see the best inventions in agriculture, and to introduce into his own country the latest improvements—a man of most exemplary character, and against whom his bitterest adversaries were never able to say a single word. It was the same in the Legations. The men elected were of the highest character and most distinguished families. He would not trouble the House with their names, but with many of them he had the honour to be acquainted, and he ventured to say that it was impossible to have chosen any number of men, by any mode which could be devised, who more entirely represented the feelings of the people than those who composed the Parliamentary representatives of Tuscany and the Legations. It was a most remarkable and interesting fact that there was not one man who had taken part in the Italian movement against whom a finger could be pointed. There was not one who could be accused of speculating on the Bourse, or who was not of the highest private character. He would not say that they would afford a favourable contrast with men in a country nearer to us than Italy, but they did afford a most striking contrast with the officials in the Roman States, where all was bribery and corruption. If you wanted an order to see a public building in those States or to see a book in a library you must bribe. Legates were sent to govern districts with a salary of £200 or £300 a year, and they came back with fortunes. The whole country was a mass of bribery. The result of all this misgovernment was that throughout the whole of Italy the people called on the King of Sardinia to extend his dominions. It was an important fact to bear in mind that this great movement had been carried on entirely by the moderate party. The so-called Mazzini party had disappeared. The noble Lord the Member for the City of London would bear him out when he reminded him that four or five years ago he said that party was almost extinct. In 1848 the moderate party abstained from action, but the movement now was entirely that of the
  1370
  moderate party. The result was that every honest, intelligent, and liberal man had gathered round them, and Mr. Russell, in one of his despatches, noticed the change of public feeling, speaking of the people as placing their hopes in the King of Sardinia and Count Cavour, in whom they saw the sole salvation of Italy. They had heard of intimidation at Naples. He had the authority of the military commander of Naples for saying that, when the elections took place in that city, there were only twenty-two soldiers present in it. He believed, therefore, the numbers quoted by the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Hennessy) were founded on some mistake. [MR. HENNESSY: They were official."] He believed that Her Majesty's Government was justified in the course they had taken. He believed that the despatch written by the noble Lord accurately stated the feeling of the English people. He had an authority to quote almost higher than that of the noble Lord. He held in his hand a pamphlet on Lombardy, written by one who would not be accused of partiality for Italian liberals; it was written by George Bowyer, Esq., D.C.L., author of Commentaries on the Constitutional Law of England; and en the Modern Civil Law. It was published in 1848, but things were not much changed since then—
  "It must, moreover, be remembered that the King was invited by the Government de facto of Lombardy, being in full possession of the capital, to assist that Government in its contest against Austria. The case is one, not of intervention, but of the acknowledgment of a new Government during the continuance of a civil war. Such an acknowledgment and its consequences are shown to be lawful by some of the highest authorities on the law of nations. Wheaton (vol. i., pp. 92, 93) holds that while a civil war involving a contest for the Government continues, other States may remain indifferent spectators of the contest, or may espouse the cause of the party which they believe to have justice on its side; and he corroborates his position by citing divers precedents. Vattel and Martens hold the same opinion. The former says (liv. ii., ch. iv. § 56), 'Quand un peuple prend avec raison les armes contre un oppresseur, il n'y a que justice et generosityé à secourir do braves gens qui defendent leur liberté. Toutes les foisr done, que les choses en viennent a une guerre civile, les puissances étrangères peuvent assister celui des deux parties qui leur parait fonde ea justice.'"
  When he saw the quotation from Vattel in the despatch of the noble Lord the Member for the City, he little thought that the noble Lord was indebted for it to the pamphlet of the hon. and learned Member for Lundalk. The hon. and learned Mem-

  1371
  ber was the tutor, preceptor, and friend of the noble Lord, and furnished him with this very quotation. Still less would be have anticipated that the noble Lord would have gone to the hon. and learned Member for illustrations on a great constitutional question. The hon. and learned Member, however, went on to say—
  "This is a doctrine which the admirers of William III. and the Revolution of 1688 cannot be allowed to call in question. Vattel shows that in a case of civil war foreign Powers have a right to deal with the contending parties as separate Powers and to take part with either. These are authorities directly in point. It is also established law that a foreign Power may by force put an end to a civil war in another State for the purpose of preventing a condition of things dangerous or injurious to herself."
  Further on the hon. and learned Member wrote—
  "Are the Italian feelings of nationality entitled to no respect? True, the Italians have never in modern times been united into one State. But what then? Is community of language and literature nothing? Is community of traditions and history nothing? And is community of race no bond of union? The Italians feel as one nation, and there are few Englishmen who do not sympathize with them and cordially desire their deliverance, by their own valour, from their foreign masters."
  The hon. and learned Member wound up—
  "I shall assume, therefore, that the independence of Italy is a great and desirable object for which we, as a free nation, must be zealous, as we should be for our own deliverance if the course of events had brought us under foreign domination, and deprived us of our political liberties. Such is the feeling which makes me rejoice that the armies of Italy are led in a just cause by a just man."
  He was sure the hon. and learned Member would not call in question that which he had written. He did not wish to rest the question, however, on these quotations. There were times when nations did not go by Vattel or any other authority on international law. There were great crises in the history of a nation when international law was set aside, as when Hampden refused to pay ship-money and when we effected our great Revolution. This was a great revolution, and they must weigh the good against the bad. They must see what was the necessity, and take upon their own showing the manifestations of feeling by the people. He confessed that he was one of those who, like the noble Lord, thought that what was called unification was not likely to promote the prosperity of Italy. He believed that a federation of States under the same head, but with self government, would best suit the genius of the
  1372
  Italians and would best agree with their former history. But the Italians had decided otherwise. It might be an experiment which would turn out ill; but, if it did, it must not be forgotten that no nation had established its independence by one struggle, and it might be that through many struggles the hour of redemption for Italy would come at last. But if the voice of that House could reach Italy he hoped it would tell her to care not so much for unification as for her municipal institutions. There was no country in the world which had such municipal institutions. They dated from the earliest period, and they were the cause of the preservation of that little liberty which had survived all foreign tyranny. By means of the municipal institutions the whole of the taxes in Tuscany were collected without one shilling of expense to the Government. They not only discounted their own bills for taxes, but even paid them sometimes in advance. He had no doubt the Chancellor of the Exchequer would be glad to see such a system in operation here. He entreated the Italians, then, to retain their old municipal institutions. They were the glory and the best safeguard of freedom of England, and, he believed, in no country could liberty be safe where they did not exist. He rejoiced to see that in the programme of Count Cavour the principle was laid down that municipal institutions should be preserved and promoted to the greatest possible extent. He was not one of those who went as far as an eminent modern writer in believing that men had no influence over events, but were entirely dependent upon them; but he did believe that when great events were about to take place the men necessary to direct them were to be found. This had been eminently the case in Italy. The three very men required to carry through the great change which had taken place there had been found—a King disposed to listen to the advice of a constitutional Minister; a great constitutional Minister— for he was a great constitutional Minister— let them say what they liked, who could give true liberal institutions to his country, and a general, like Garibaldi, who could direct the enthusiasm of his countrymen and lead them to conquer their freedom. There was another man whose name should not be omitted in the history of Italian independence—Sir James Hudson—who had not interfered in the

  1373
  affairs of Italy, otherwise than being always ready with the most prudent and wisest counsel, and who by steadily pointing out to the Italians the true path of constitutional liberty, had earned a title to their lasting gratitude. It seemed to be supposed that Italy had always been a slave and must remain so. But it should be remembered that from the tenth to the fifteenth century no country had been so rich or prosperous, and, at the same time, so free. What led to the destruction of her commerce and her liberties? The ambition of Popes, and afterwards the invasion of the French in the time of Charles VIII. To restore them the ambition of the Popes must be restrained, and her foreign oppressors, whether Austrians or French, be removed. Italy would then regain her former prosperity. She had shown herself eminently qualified for liberal institutions. Look at the Parliamentary Government of Piedmont. Compare Piedmont with Rome. Look at the railways of Piedmont, at the increase of her commerce, and the prosperity of her population: no one could travel through the country without being struck with wonder at the progress she had made in a few years. Look at the Italian press; its moderation was a proof of the moderation of the people. It was in this respect an example to Europe. He was told Italy would be French; but no nation permanently allied itself to another from motives of gratitude; he believed that Italy would be the ally of that country which most resembled herself in her institutions and in which she had the greatest material interests — she would be the ally of this country. Did they think it suited France to have a united Italy? Look at the policy of France in years gone by. After the restoration of the Bourbons, during the time of the Republic, it had always been the same; it was opposed to a strong and united Italy. Italy united could not be French; Italy disunited would always be French. Let the Austrians be removed from Venetia, let there be no more pretext for French interference, Italy would be united and independent; she would then know where to seek for her best allies. Such being his opinions, he could not but feel that the despatch of the noble Lord truly and justly represented the feeling of this country. He believed the policy of hon. Gentlemen opposite as a party, was Austrian, and against Italian unity; and he thought it would be the greatest possible misfortune
  1374
  if the present Government were brought to an end, for he believed such a foreign policy would involve us in a war before long; and, therefore, he would do everything in his power to support the present Government. Before he sat down he owed some reparation to Lord Derby who complained that he had misquoted what he (Lord Derby) said on a recent occasion in "another place." A wrong impression had been given of what he really did say. He certainly did condemn the quotation made use of by the noble Lord in which he compared the Italians to dogs and curs, and the manner in which he had spoken of Garibaldi; he thought his words would appear, when translated, insulting to the Italian people; and he was borne out in that by the Italian press. But he fully acquitted the noble Lord of wishing to say anything offensive to the Italian people, or of saying anything personally disrespectful of Garibaldi. He entirely sympathized with the Italian people, and he thought the policy which had been pursued was right. We could not do more; we could not do less. They had our moral support, sympathy, encouragement, and, he hoped, our advice; and he believed the time would come when they would be grateful. An enviable glory would attach to the two noble Lords who had enabled a great country to resume that place in the family of nations to which she was so well entitled by the genius of her people and her past history.
  SIR GEORGE BOWYER* would not follow the hon. Gentleman into the details of his invective against the Papal Government. He would content himself with a sample or two. He had quoted an old story about a certain judge or inquisitor who had issued a very foolish decree as a sample of what the Roman Government was; but that foolish person, who held a very obscure and subordinate office which had fallen completely into desuetude, who thought he would show his authority and importance by publishing that decree, was displaced when it was known at Rome, and the decree itself was quashed and annulled. Then the hon. Gentleman told a story about some brigands near Rome stopping a railway train. Certainly, any brigands who could stop a steam-engine travelling on a railroad must be very powerful follows—almost as powerful as the bulls which the hon. Gentleman had discovered. He remembered the story very

  1375
  well; but the fact was, it was all a hoax, which amused people at Rome for some days, to which no one ever attached the slightest credit. Then the hon. Gentleman referred to the much talked of massacre at Perugia. When he was at Borne he was told by an English lady and gentleman of high character—Protestants—in no way prejudiced in favour of the Papal Government—who were at Perugia at the time and saw all that took place, that there was no massacre at all. No women or children at all were killed; the town was taken by storm, certainly, and about thirty men in arms were killed in fair fight, but there was no such thing as a massacre. The hon. Gentleman had addressed a sort of argumentum ad hominem to him, by quoting from a pamphlet which, he had written in the year 1848. To every word in that pamphlet he still adhered; but the circumstances of 1848 were entirely different from those of 1860 and 1861. There was then no conspiracy of the King of Sardinia against Austria. The Austrians by a popular rising had been driven out of Lombardy, and the King of Sardinia, exercising the right of intervention, and being invited by the authorities of Lombardy, did march his troops into that country. The cases were quite different. By his quotation the hon. Gentleman endeavoured to show that he had been guilty of self-contradiction, and that he had been in favour of intervention at one time, and of non-intervention at another. But he still maintained that, according to the doctrine of international law, when there was a war going on in a country, an adjoining country, if it were interested, had a right to intervene; and the exercise of the right was justifiable or not according to the side which was taken. If you took up a just quarrel, the intervention was justifiable; if you took up an unjust quarrel, intervention was unjustifiable. But now intervention was only considered justifiable and right when it took place in favour of rebellion. Anything that was done against the lawful Sovereign fighting to maintain his rights was justifiable; but anything done on the side of a lawful Sovereign was stigmatized as unjustifiable. Hon. Gentlemen cheered when reference was made to the massacre of Perugia; but not a word of indignation was heard when his hon. Friend mentioned the atrocities which had been committed by the Piedmontese Go-
  1376
  vernment. It was quite right for the Piedmontese to bombard Ancona, Capua, and Gaeta; but when Ferdinand King of Naples bombarded a part of Messina, which was occupied by rebels, it was said that all Europe ought to rise up against him. When the massacres committed by the revolutionary party were spoken of, the hon. Gentleman said, of course, such things must happen at a time of revolution; but if a single man were imprisoned—Baron Poerio, or any one else—the Government was denounced as tyrannical and barbarous, though he was imprisoned for undoubted treason and on due conviction. ("Oh, oh!") Hon. Gentlemen might cry "Oh," but that was the fact. The stories which the hon. Gentleman had recounted against the Papal Government wore obsolete, groundless, and absurd, but the hon. Gentleman had dished them up as if they were something new and worthy the attention of the House. He would now proceed to the real subject before the House. When the Foreign Secretary rose to speak, no doubt they would hear again, as they often had heard, of the doctrine of non-intervention. That appeared to be the beginning and the end of the policy of the Government. It was the doctrine with which the Government answered all the attacks made upon it, and with which so far it had professed to carry out all its Italian policy. What was the modern doctrine of nonintervention? It was a doctrine invented by the revolutionary party to facilitate and effect the overthrow of lawful Governments by the violation of the law of nations, and of those laws on which not only-all Governments, but human society itself, was founded. The Government of Her Majesty ought not to have accepted and maintained that doctrine, destructive of the public law of Europe, and directed to an end which, for the welfare of our country and of the whole world, Providence will not permit to be accomplished. But did the Italian revolution begin by nonintervention? Certainly not. The hon. Gentleman said that the King of Sardinia did not rely on foreign bayonets; but if it had not been for the support of 300,000 French bayonets he would have been crushed when he put himself at the head of the revolution. It was the intervention of France that revolutionized Italy. There was no rising of the people in Tuscany; it was the landing at Leghorn of Prince Napoleon—whose speech within the last

  1377
  few days has astonished Europe—which gave the command to the revolutionary party, and overturned the Government. It was not the people, but the foreign intervention which did that. The hon. Gentleman said that when the Austrian troops left Bologna, the Papal Legate left with them. There was nothing wonderful in that. There were no troops left to protect life and property; the Trench troops were in Tuscany, the Revolutionary party was certain to move, and the fact did not by any means prove that the Papal Government was detested by the people. The Government now prevailing there; he would venture to say was much more detested by the people than the Papal Government was asserted by hon. Gentlemen to have been. His hon. Friend (Mr. Hennessy) had given various instances of the manner in which the Government had put into practice this hypocritical doctrine of non-intervention, of which they talked so much. The Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary had, in fact, been supporting the revolution from the very first. What was our fleet doing at Marsala when Garibaldi landed? It could not be to protect the miserable trade in bad sherry which was carried on there. The fact was our Government knew of his being about to land there, and sent the fleet to give him what aid it could. In the same way The Times' correspondent wrote the other day that the revolutionary party at Naples were in a great fright lest our fleet should leave Naples, and he added that he feared the consequences if it were taken away. It was there, in fact, to support the revolution and prevent the return of the King. In the blue book it was stated that Victor Emmanuel had thanked the English Government for the sympathy they had shown him throughout, and acknowledged that their moral, or, as he (Sir George Bowyer) would call it, immoral support of his unprovoked aggression, had been of the greatest service. But did noble Lords mean to say that to observe the principle of non-intervention it was sufficient to abstain from sending armies and fleets to levy war? Was the moral influence of a country like England nothing? The moral, or rather the immoral influence of England had been, used by Her Majesty's Government in support of the Revolutionary party in Italy, and against the established governments; and that, he asserted, was a violation of their professions of non-intervention. Our right of intervention had been acted upon by
  1378
  Her Majesty's Government, not for its legitimate purpose, the maintenance of the law of nations and of treaties, and the support of lawful authority, but in favour of revolution and piracy, and for the purpose of satisfying old and unjust rancour against the family of the Bourbons of Naples. But in this case material as well as moral support was given by the English fleet, without the presence of which the landing at Marsala could not have been effected, as it has been declared by the population, judge, and authorities of Favignana. As to the King of Sardinia he was not even an Italian. He was a Savoyard, and a bad one, too, for he sold Savoy. And then General Cialdini had the impudence to talk about planting the cross of Savoy upon the walls of Gaeta! Was a King who had sold his own country a fit champion of the nationality of others? Then, what had been his conduct with regard to Naples? Last year an expedition was fitted out at Genoa for the avowed object of attacking Naples, with which State Sardinia was then at peace. That expedition was organized publicly, and might have been stopped by the Sardinian Government, as, according to the law of nations, they were bound to do. The King of Naples asked the meaning of these armaments. The King of Sardinia disavowed and disclaimed them, declaring that Garibaldi was making an illegal use of the flag of Sardinia. What did this declaration mean? It meant that Garibaldi was a pirate. The King of Naples, be it remembered, was the son of a Princess of Savoy, and was, therefore, related to Victor Emmanuel. He was the son of Princess Christina of Savoy, daughter of Victor Emmanuel, King of Sardinia— that gallant King who defended Savoy against the French, which his unworthy successor basely sold to Franco. Yet, in order to expel this relation from his dominions, the King of Sardinia practised all the arts of bribery and corruption. Neapolitan officers in high command, both in the army and navy, were bought over at the very time when the King was assuring his cousin of his pacific intentions, and was stigmatizing Garibaldi as a pirate. In this detestable manner the expedition succeeded. It was said that when Garibaldi overran Sicily the people were enthusiastic and unanimous in his favour; but, if so, why was no regular Government established? Instead of this, a newspaper correspondent declared that nothing was

  1379
  established but assassination, anarchy, and confusion. The King of Naples was then advised by Her Majesty's Government to throw himself into the arms of the Liberal party.—[Lord JOHN RUSSELL: Not at that time. He was advised to do so before.]— Accordingly, His Majesty sent for Liborio Romano. This man was bribed by Piedmont, and was a traitor. He took his seat at the Council Board, with the intention of betraying his Sovereign. The King was naturally reluctant to expose the beautiful city of Naples to the horrors of war, and therefore accepted the advice given to him that he should leave his capital, knowing well that if he did not do so, and if the city were afterwards destroyed by the Pied-montese, Her Majesty's Government would throw the blame of it, not upon the aggressors, but upon him. When Garibaldi entered Naples with his gang of pirates in red shirts the city was in consternation, as though struck with pestilence. He had this from an eyewitness. Garibaldi proceeded at once to the cathedral. Forcing open the gates, he placed in the sanctuary Gavazzi, who sang an impious Te Deum, after every verse of which he called out "Viva Garibaldi!" After this outrage upon the Church of God, the first act of the Government was to bestow a national reward upon the relations of Agesilao Milano, who had attempted to murder the father of the present King of Naples. And they had been told by The Times' correspondent that the King of Sardinia had confirmed the decree by which that reward was granted to the family of Milano. The piracy of Garibaldi having thus succeeded by means of treason and corruption, the King of Sardinia declared himself, and gathered the fruits of all these crimes. The King of Sardinia had entered Naples, and accepted the annexation of that kingdom which had been already declared by Garibaldi in Palermo, and implicitly carried into execution at Naples by the delivery of the Neapolitan fleet to the King of Sardinia's Admiral. And the King justified the act by saying that he did it to deliver the country from the anarchy caused by the invasion of Garibaldi. But instead of attacking the forces of Garibaldi he attacked the troops of Naples and of Borne. Again, the King of Sardinia stated that he was justified in entering the States of the Pope because the Pope had foreign troops in his pay. Why, they knew from history that all Sovereigns had had foreign troops in their service;
  1380
  such a casus belli against a neighbouring Sovereign had never been heard of. With no cause for war, without a declaration of war, Sardinia marched 70,000 troops into the lower part of Italy and bombarded Ancona. Yet, those who made so much noise about the bombardment of Messina, said nothing about Ancona. Ancona was bombarded by the revolutionary party, and everything done by the revolutionary party hon. Gentlemen opposite thought right; everything done by the lawful Sovereign of the country was wrong and an outrage. The Sardinian troops overran the territory of Naples; and while they held military possession of it, and four provinces were under martial law, the annexation took place. Again, he would refer to the correspondent of The Times, because nobody could say he was unfavourable to the cause of Piedmont. The correspondent of The Times gave an account of the publication of the vote at Naples — what would be called hero the declaration of the poll. He stated that very few people were present and described the whole thing as a failure. It proved that the feeling of the people of Naples was not in favour of the annexation to Sardinia. In fact their feeling was opposed to it. The vote in favour of annexation was obtained by force, fraud, and terror. Was it likely that the people of Naples, who honoured the memory of Charles III. for putting an end to the dominion of a viceroy; or the Sicilians, who were jealous of the dominion oven of a viceroy of the neighbouring State, would applaud the notion of being placed under the authority of a viceroy from Turin? The thing was absurd, the annexation was repugnant to the people, and as a proof of it they heard of nothing but anarchy after it. He now came to the last part of this miserable history. The King repaired to Gaeta, and took refuge in that fortress, and there he presented a spectacle unparalleled in the history of the world. At Gaeta they saw that King and his brave younger brothers, and his loyal and valiant uncle, the Count of Trapani, gallantly making a stand in defence of the nationality of their people. The Sardinian General, Cialdini, having no cause of war against them, threw shot and shell upon the heads of the King and his family, and yet hon. Gentlemen applauded and approved of that outrage on international law. Who was King Bomba now? Who had destroyed thousands of people? The King of Sardinia. Was it King Ferdinand

  1381
  who bombarded a part of Messina while in the possession of rebels, and used military means to maintain his lawful authority, and King Francis, who humanely-stopped the bombardment of Palermo; or was it not rather the King of Sardinia, who, without any cause of war against the Holy Father, bombarded Ancona, and who then, without any cause of war, bombarded Capua, and ended by bombarding Gaeta, the last refuge of his royal and unfortunate relative and his august family, while he himself enjoyed the pleasures of the usurped capital? The King of Sardinia had destroyed thousands of unoffending people by bombardment. In that fortress they saw a young Queen, accustomed to all the luxury of a splendid Royal Court, doing the work of a sister of charity in the hospitals, hurrying from the ramparts to the hospitals and from the hospitals to the ramparts, encouraging the soldiers, and consoling and assisting the wounded, exposing her life to the fire of the Sardinians and to pestilence; and on one occasion she was called up in the dead of the night from her bed, because a poor soldier desired to see her before he died. That was a spectacle that might move the noble Lord the Foreign Secretary. But no, his feelings were not with the illustrious, pious, and heroic Lady and that young and gallant Prince struggling against a brutal usurpation: no, his sympathies were with violence, revolution, and with the apologist of murder—the pirate Garibaldi. All this was dishonest and wicked in every way; but it was justified because it was done for the cause of Italian unity. Put even granting that an Italian unity was desirable, he did not believe in the future prosperity of any unity founded in crime. That unity had been accomplished to a certain extent, but the building had a bad foundation, and must speedily fall. He doubted whether an Italian unity was to be desired. In the greatest times of Italy, in the days of Dante, Petrarch, Michael Angelo, and Galileo—in the days of all that was grand in art, science, and literature, there was a great and glorious, but not a united Italy. When was it ever united? Only when it was ground down by conquest; and that was the case at present. Italy was united, because Piedmont had conquered it; there was now a military tyranny over Italy. But a prosperous unity could only be obtained by just and noble means, certainly not by destroying the traditions of its his-
  1382
  tory and the rights of its princes, and violating the law of nations, not by sacrilege against the see of Peter and the rights of religion and the Church, the violation of the laws of property, the spoliation and persecution of the clergy, and by outrages against the morality and the conscience of the people. Italy, left to the different peoples who inherit it, with its princes in the enjoyment of their rights, might be great and glorious as a Confederation. They talked of Italy as they would talk of Middlesex. Put the Italians were not all one people; they were different in origin, different even in language. Of the Piedmontese troops now in Naples, not one in ten could make himself easily understood by its inhabitants. The people of Lombardy were of Germanic origin, as their name indicated. They wore descended from an invading tribe. The Piedmontese belonged to Cisalpine Gaul, and were not Italians. To bring all Italy under one Government, all the various nationalities of the country must be crushed, all the magnificent municipal institutions must be destroyed, everything that belonged to Italian history must be obliterated, and all reduced to a dull uniformity under a military despotism. And that was what was now being done. Instead of liberty there was a grinding tyranny; and if the Piedmontese troops were marched out of Naples tomorrow the legitimate Sovereign would be brought back to his capital upon the shoulders of his people. [A laugh.] Hon. Gentlemen laughed because they knew nothing of the country; but having resided for years in Naples he was certain of the fact. Italian unity is an idea which has been made an instrument to gratify the ambition of Piedmont and enable the revolutionary party to overturn lawful authority and persecute the Church, for the satisfaction of their rapacity and their destructive passions. He must allude to one other point before he sat down. He wanted to know from the noble Lord what was his policy. Was it an Italian policy, a French policy, or an English policy? A remarkable speech has just been delivered by Prince Napoleon. The noble Lord, no doubt, would say that we were acting in unison with France. But what did Prince Napoleon say? He said, "The Emperor represents modern society—its progressive tendencies"—could any one tell what that phrase meant?—"and the liberal principles of 1789." What were the principles of 1739? Those principles brought a King

  1383
  and a Queen to the scaffold. The Prince went on to say, "Our alliance is not with any particular Ministers, but with the great and liberal English people, by which we defend the great principles of liberty and progress." The Prince talked about liberty and progress a good deal, but why did he not begin at home? He was willing that other nations should enjoy liberty and progress, because by those terms he meant revolution and confusion. The Emperor's policy was revolution at the head of half a million of armed men. He was now endeavouring to stir up revolution in Hungary, in Poland, and he had succeeded in revolutionizing all Italy. Having placed Italy under his feet by holding out the bauble of Italian unity, the Emperor was now seeking to break up the Germanic Confederation by setting up Germanic unity. The game of the Emperor of the French was revolution, and noble Lords opposite were playing into his hands. They all knew what the Emperor went for. He had got Savoy and Nice; and now the English Government were doing all they could to separate Prussia from Germany, and to destroy Austria. What harm had Austria ever done this country? She was our "ancient Ally." But, supposing that the Emperor should succeed in separating Prussia from Austria, then it was clear that France and Russia would divide Europe between them. The present policy of the English Government was to forward that consummation, and he (Sir George Bowyer) denounced it as an un-English policy, although it might be a liberal and an Italian policy. The Emperor of the French desired the frontier of the Rhine, he coveted Antwerp, he wanted dominion in the East, and he had got his foot in Syria; and the English Government were doing all in their power to forward his views. They were paralyzing all our European allies by assisting him, and he would go on steadily in his course until he had gained all his objects, and at lust England would he forced to go to war with him. The Emperor did not, probably, want to invade England, but his ambition would lead him to it, for we should go on allowing him to gain his ends, uttering empty protests as in the case of Savoy and Nice, or making unmeaning speeches, until at last he would have all the power of Europe in his hands. It would, then, be too late for this country to attempt to stop him, and he would play his last card and invade this country. He would not, probably,
  1384
  succeed, and scarely a man of his army would be likely to return; but he would be able to inflict infinite ruin and mischief upon us. Any attempt at invasion even would produce something like national bankruptcy, for the Chancellor of the Exchequer could tell them how the national credit was affected by the slightest causes. The policy now adopted was the cause of the necessity for maintaining a large army, for calling upon 200,000 Volunteers, for imposing taxes almost beyond the endurance of the people. It was a false policy — one which placed the country in the hands of a man who, while he talked of friendship, meant mischief; and it was, moreover, a policy founded upon party spirit, adopted for party motives, which was fostering a power that in the end would, if not destroy, at least produce the greatest injury to this country. It was a policy which had destroyed that prestige of honour and justice which used to attend the British flag. That flag now inspires distrust and apprehension in the minds of sovereigns and nations, and encourages none but the revolutionary party in Europe, who are the unprincipled tools of the unbounded ambition of the French Emperor. He called upon the noble Lord to change that policy before it was too late. He called upon the people of this country to compel them to abandon a policy which was fatal to the interests and the honour of England, and destructive of the peace and tranquillity of Europe.
  MR. EDWIN JAMESmoved the adjournment of the debate.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Debate be now adjourned."
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, he was aware that several hon. Members wished to speak upon this subject, and, therefore, would not object to the adjournment; but he thought the debate should be continued to-morrow as it was very inconvenient to have long intervals, and in that case on Thursday they could go into Committee of Supply, which was even necessary for the public service. He hoped that hon. Members who had given notice of Motions for to-morrow would allow the debate to be resumed then.

  THE BOARD OF ADMIRALTY AND SIR BALDWIN WALKER—OBSERVATIONS.
  SIR JOHN PARTINGTON: Sir, I understand it to be the intention of the Government to consent to the adjournment

  1385
  of the debate on Italian affairs. Therefore, although I am very sorry at this late hour to intrude on the House, I feel compelled to ask the Government, and especially the noble Lord the Secretary to the Admiralty, to whom I have given notice of my intention, for an explanation on a matter which closely concerns the mode of transacting public business as between this House and the Ministers, and which, from the nature of the circumstances, I regard as very urgent. I have reason to believe that it is not now too late for the Government, if they should see fit, to change the intention announced early in the evening. I allude to the answer I received to a Question which I put at the usual hour—namely, whether or not I was to infer, from the fact that the Narcissus frigate had left Spithead, that the Admiralty have permitted Sir Baldwin Walker to leave England without giving evidence before the approaching Committee. I must remind hon. Gentlemen of what has taken place on this subject. I had occasion this day fortnight to explain to the House the reasons which induced me to give up my notice of Motion for a Committee to inquire into the administration of the Admiralty. In doing so I stated publicly that I had a few days before spoken to the noble Lord on the subject, and I expressed my hope that Sir Baldwin Walker would not leave England without giving evidence before the Committee. I confess I thought that public statement in the House of Commons would have been enough to insure that Sir Baldwin Walker would be examined as a witness, and I venture to say it ought to have been enough. Nothing move occurred till Thursday last. On that morning I was told by a friend that I had better make some inquiry, for he understood that Sir Baldwin Walker was to leave England on the following Saturday. I could hardly credit that information: but I immediately wrote a letter to my noble Friend the Secretary to the Admiralty to tell him that in the evening I meant to put a question to him to learn whether that report was true. When the debate came on that same evening on the Motion of the hon. Member for Portsmouth (Sir James Elphinstone), that hon. Member anticipated the question I was about to ask, and made an urgent appeal to my noble Friend on the importance of Sir Baldwan Walker's evidence, if the Committee really was to be granted. I followed the hon. Member for Portsmouth
  1386
  later in the debate, and, pursuing my written notice given in the morning, also addressed an earnest appeal to the noble Lord, stating that Sir Baldwin Walker was, if not the most important witness, certainly the most important with only one exception; and that it was absolutely essential, if you were to have an inquiry into the conduct of the Admiralty, that he should give his testimony. My noble Friend spoke immediately after me, beginning with a statement which I confess very greatly surprised mo. He said the noble Duke at the head of the Admiralty hail been willing that Sir Baldwin Walker should, if necessary, be detained in this country, but that the noble Lord had applied to the hon. and gallant Admiral who was about to move for the Committee (Admiral Buncombe) whether he thought it necessary that Sir Baldwin Walker should be so detained. But that was not all. The noble Lord said he had applied, not to the hon. and gallant Admiral only, but to "the other members of the Committee." Now, the Committee was not then, and is not now, appointed. What private arrangement may have been going on with regard to it I cannot say; but, perhaps, the noble Lord can tell us what he meant last Thursday evening by stating that he had applied to the hon. and gallant Admiral and "the other Members of the Committee" to ascertain whether they wished that Sir Baldwin Walker should be detained. The noble Lord said that the hon. and gallant Admiral then expressed an opinion that the evidence of Sir Baldwin Walker before the Dockyard Commission would be sufficient for the forthcoming inquiry. Now I cannot, in passing, refrain from avowing my astonishment that the noble Lord or the hon. and gallant Admiral should have allowed themselves to be parties to so improper and irregular a proceeding. We are informed that the hon. and gallant Admiral who moved for the Committee is not even to be its Chairman; but supposing he were to be, I ask what right or what power he could possibly have to speak in the name of a Committee not yet appointed, and to undertake to say what its opinions would be with regard to the propriety of examining any particular witness? Sir, let me here protest against the futile, and—I do not wish to use any strong expression—but the untenable proposition that evidence taken before another Commission, which evidence is not before us, can be sufficient for all the

  1387
  purposes of another and a wholly distinct investigation. Even supposing that evidence to be in our possession, and to be formally referred by this House to this Select Committee, how can the noble Lord or the gallant Admiral say what cross-examination it may suggest to the Committee as indispensable to the due prosecution of their inquiry? So much for the first part of the noble Lord's answer. But he proceeded to say what I will now read to the House. The noble Lord's words were—
  "Even now, if it were the wish of the House of Commons that Sir Baldwin Walker should remain a few days to give evidence before the Committee, the noble Duke would not put himself in opposition to its wishes."
  Now, I maintain that that was a pledge on the part both of the noble Lord and of the Admiralty that this important witness should not be sent away. What did the noble Lord mean by saying, "if it were the wish of the House of Commons?" How was he to ascertain the wish of this House? Did he suppose that we were going to move a formal Resolution? What test of the feelings of this House could he desire more conclusive than the fact of one Member after another rising and expressing a strong opinion that the testimony of Sir Baldwin Walker was all-important? It is mentioned in the quarter from which I took that extract that this intimation was received with cheers. Let me ask the noble Lord how many of the Gentlemen who joined in that cheer does he suppose thought that after this pledge given on Thursday night Sir Baldwin Walker would be sent away from England on Saturday morning? These are the facts of the case, with one material addition. The pledge given on Thursday night was contingent on the wish of the House of Commons. On Friday night we had another discussion on this subject; and then my right hon. Friend the Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Henley), took part in the debate, adding another opinion —and an opinion, I need not say, of no little weight under all the circumstances —to the earnest hope before expressed, that Sir Baldwin Walker would not be allowed to leave England before being examined. Well there was then still ample time left. We know the quickness of telegraphic despatches. And after this increased indication of what was the wish of the House of Commons, unaccompanied by the slightest symptom of an opposite
  1388
  desire, I say the noble Lord had as clear a proof as he could reasonably expect of the feeling of this House, and that the departure of Sir Baldwin Walker is a violation of the pledge given in the words I have quoted. I think it right to lose no time in bringing this matter forward. Here is a Committee of no ordinary interest moved for. There are some two or three men in whose power it is to throw light on the inquiry. One of the most prominent of them is Sir Baldwin Walker. And I am sorry to add that when in the face of all these circumstances we find Sir Baldwin Walker despatched from England on Saturday morning without necessity—for I do not think the noble Lord will pretend to say that the loss of another few days can be of any consequence beyond the mere delay in relieving Sir Henry Keppel at the Cape—it is impossible to resist the suspicion that there must be some motive beyond what is avowed for preventing the examination of this witness. It will be for the House to consider whether it will, under the circumstances, be of any use for this Committee to go on. I do not wish to commit myself to any hasty opinion, but my present impression is that the Committee will be of little or no value without the presence of this officer. This, however, will be a matter for subsequent consideration. For the present I only call on the noble Lord to give an explanation of the circumstances to which I have adverted; and I shall be glad if he can remove the impression that must exist, and the belief I have been obliged to express, that the conduct of the Admiralty, as it now stands before us, has been disrespectful to the House of Commons.
  SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONEwished to ask the noble Lord, whether he could tell where Sir Baldwin Walker was? After he had weighed from Spithead on Saturday a strong westerly wind came on to blow; it had kept on blowing very hard ever since, and that day three parts of a gale was blowing from the west-northwest. It was not, therefore, likely that the gallant Admiral had got very far, and it might still be within the bounds of possibility to detain him. He ventured to say that if Sir Baldwin Walker were not forthcoming the inquiry would be a mere mockery of Parliament, and the appointment of the Committee would be perfectly useless. It certainly did appear a most suspicious circumstance that Sir Baldwin Walker should be sent to sea in a gale of

  1389
  wind; as if it were desired by the Government to get him out of the way.
  MR. CONINGHAMregarded the occurrence complained of as an illustration of the objections to the system under which the head of an important department like the Admiralty was sitting in the other House of the Legislature. A charge of something like sharp practice had been brought against the noble Duke; but they saw nothing of him, and had no opportunity of forming an opinion with respect to him. He knew nothing of the noble Duke except from the little experience he had had of him when he attended the Select Committee on the National Gallery. The noble Duke's conduct on that occasion was certainly not such as was calculated to gain his (Mr. Coningham's) confidence, inasmuch as the Report which the noble Duke then drew up was, in his opinion, against the evidence.
  LORD CLARENCE PAGET: I am sure it will not be necessary for me to defend my noble Friend the Duke of Somerset's conduct as Chairman of the Committee on the National Gallery; but this I can say, that the way in which he has performed his duties at the Admiralty has given satisfaction. With regard to the question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, as to where Sir Baldwin Walker is to be found now, I have no doubt he is boxing about the Channel. I do not think he can have got very far, and I can only repeat that if it be generally desired that the gallant Admiral should attend and give his evidence before the Committee, the Admiralty will not oppose itself for a moment to the wishes of the House. Let me state frankly what occurred. My right hon. Friend the Member for Droitwich was apparently in great doubt with reference to this Committee. Sometimes he said a Committee would be of no service, and then he came down and advocated its appointment. His opinions have changed as to the propriety or non-propriety—
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTON: I wish my noble Friend, if he quotes me, would do me the favour to quote me correctly. Just now he has put forward quite inaccurately what I stated.
  LORD CLARENCE PAGET: At all events, the right hon. Gentleman expressed an earnest desire the other night that Sir Baldwin Walker should be made to attend and give his evidence. I then stated that he had very important duties to perform;
  1390
  and I may now add that he has to meet Sir Henry Keppel at Ascension, to make arrangements for taking charge of his station, as Sir Henry Keppel has then to proceed to America to relieve another Admiral. It was thought right by the noble Duke at the head of the Admiralty to detain Sir Baldwin Walker until he had prepared the Estimates; that delay, though necessary for the public service, was inconvenient, and it therefore became of great importance that Sir Baldwin Walker should start for his destination as soon as possible. I communicated to the Duke of Somerset the earnest wish of the right hon. Gentleman that Sir Baldwin Walker should remain; but I stated also that the gallant Admiral who was about to move for the Committee had come to me and mentioned that he had consulted several Gentlemen whom he proposed to name as members of the Committee—Gentlemen, give mo leave to say, whose ability and fitness the House will recognize if the Committee should come to be named—and that they were of opinion with him that there was no necessity to detain Sir Baldwin Walker from his important duties, as he had already given his evidence fully regarding the branch of the Admiralty with which he was connected. My gallant Friend stated the same thing distinctly to the House in the course of the evening. I, therefore, applied to the noble Viscount at the head of the Government to decide whether, under these circumstances, Sir Baldwin Walker ought to go or remain, adding that I was sure my noble Friend the Duke of Somerset would be ready to consult the wishes of the House. The noble Lord replied that he did not think there had been any conclusive expression of opinion on the part of the House that the gallant Admiral ought to remain. That was the state of the case on Thursday. It is quite true that on Friday evening the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxfordshire expressed a desire that Sir Baldwin Walker should remain. It being my duty to make known any observations which may be made in this House to the noble Duke and to the Board of Admiralty, my noble Friend asked in answer whether I thought there had been any general expression of opinion on the part of the House. I could not say that there had been anything beyond the fact that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Droit-wich, who seemed to have taken on himself a very leading part in this mat-

  1391
  ter and one or two other Gentlemen, had made the request; and, on the other hand, that the gallant Admiral, for himself and his friends, had expressed a wish that Sir Baldwin Walker should proceed on the service indicated. The question, therefore remains—Did the House express any opinion on the subject? I can say honestly that I do not think any decided opinion was expressed. But if such be now the wish of the House I beg to say that I will this night acquaint the noble Duke with that wish, and will take measures to stop Sir Baldwin Walker, at whatever inconvenience to the public service.
  MR. HENLEY: It must be apparent to every one that evidence said to have been given before a Commission having reference especially to dockyards cannot properly be relevant to such a very different question as the constitution of the Board of Admiralty; and, therefore, the evidence of Sir Baldwin Walker, having been so restrained, cannot be applicable to the present purpose. Now, the Admiralty does not stand particularly well in public estimation at the present moment; many persons have not been able to reconcile to themselves the assent given to the appointment of this Committee; and I put it to the noble Lord whether the public would not be apt to say that the Admiralty granted this Committee at the same time that they took care the only man who could really give satisfactory evidence should be removed. If my recollection does not fail me, Sir Baldwin Walker was appointed to his late position during the Administration of the late Sir Robert Peel. See, therefore, what immense experience he must have possessed. All the changes of importance in naval construction must have taken place during his reign at the Admiralty. Therefore, it is quite impossible that, without the presence of the gallant Admiral the matter can be fairly inquired into. He is the only person who can carry the stream of information through such a number of years, and through all those interesting changes as to which the public mind is so much excited as almost to have come to the conclusion that some error, or shortcoming, or mistake, has existed somewhere. If the inquiry is to be useful, let us have the means of pursuing it effectually; but if not it would be better to come to a Resolution condemnatory of the Admiralty at once, and call on the Government to provide a substitute. It is right, however, to inquire before we
  1392
  condemn, and we ought not to be deprived of the only witness who is capable of carrying us through the inquiry.
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: What my noble Friend has stated is perfectly true. On Thursday evening the right hon. Baronet expressed a wish that Sir Baldwin Walker should be detained; but the gallant Admiral by whom the Committee was to be moved for stated in the most distinct manner that there was no necessity to examine Sir Baldwin Walker as evidence amply sufficient for all purposes had already been given by him; and, on grounds of public importance, he agreed that he should proceed to his station without delay. On that I stated to my noble Friend that I was satisfied the gallant Admiral had better go. On the other hand, as there appears to be a desire on the part of those who are to be members of the Committee that Sir Baldwin Walker should be examined, I am satisfied the noble Duke at the head of the Admiralty will give directions to have him called back as soon as possible. I have only to add that there has been no desire to withdraw this officer from examination; on the contrary, Her Majesty's Government, I am sure, have no wish except to give the fullest information on every point to which the attention of the Committee may be directed. Steps shall immediately be taken to have him brought back.
  Question put, and agreed to; Debate adjourned till To-morrow.

PAROCHIAL ASSESSMENTS BILL.

  COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read, and discharged.
  SIR. GEORGE LEWISmoved that the Bill be referred to a Select Committee.
  MR. MOFFATTprotested against forcing the Bill in that way out of the House. The Bill, he thought, so extremely faulty in its construction as to be incapable of satisfactory amendment in Committee. At the same time there were many Members he knew who took an interest in it, and wished for its discussion in Committee of the Whole House.
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, he for one was of opinion that the Bill was most important, and would effect most important operations. Independently of the question of reform generally, it was a matter that demanded the earnest attention of the House. In every quarter there was a

  1393
  most earnest desire to see the object of the Bill carried out. He hoped, therefore, that the hon. Gentleman would withdraw his objections to the Bill going to a Select Committee.
  MR. W. WILLIAMS, Mr. CONINGHAM, and Sir MORTON PETO objected to the Bill in regard both to its application to the Metropolis and to other places.
  SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, that full opportunity for discussing the Bill was given on the second reading, and there was no hurry in the matter. When he was asked to refer the Bill to a Select Committee, he consented to do so on the understanding that there should be no discussion on the Motion for going into Committee. There was a question as to the applicability of the Bill to the Metropolis, but, of course, that was a question to be considered in Committee. The provisions of the Bill might not conveniently apply to the Metropolis, and it might be necessary to consider the Metropolis separately.
  MR. G. W. HOPEsaid, there was an objection to the Bill in the borough he represented.
  MR. HENLEYsaid, he thought the Bill ought to be deferred for a time.
  MR. HUMBERSTONexpressed a similar opinion.
  LORD FERMOYput it to the right hon. Gentleman whether it would not be better to withdraw the Bill in its present state. He himself said that as regarded the Metropolis the Bill ought not be applied to the Metropolis. They would have to go before the Committee to protect their interests against a Bill which he did not wish to apply to the Metropolis. There was no encouragement from any part of the country to proceed with this Bill, but the Metropolis would resist it to the utmost.
  MR. FOSTERsuggested that the Bill should be sent to a Select Committee in the ordinary way, where all the interests of parties might be considered, and a good measure be eventually framed.
  SIR JOHN SHELLEYinquired whether it was absolutely necessary for the Metropolis to be represented before the Committee: He did not wish that they should be caught napping.
  Motion made, and Question put, "That the Bill be committed to a Select Committee."
  The House divided:—Ayes 47; Noes 15: Majority 32.
  House adjourned at a quarter after One o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1a Law of Foreign Countries.
2a Trade Markets.

AFFAIRS OF ITALY.—EXPLANATION.
LORD WODEHOUSEsaid, he wished to offer a few words of explanation in re-
1270
ference to some points that had been raised in the discussion on the affairs of Italy on Friday evening. When he stated that there had no communications with Her Majesty's Government as to the blockade of Gaeta he had in his mind only communications with neutral Powers. He found that a communication had passed between the Minister of the King of Naples and the representative of the British Government in reference to the siege of Gaeta. That communication, together with the reply that had been made to it, he was ready to lay before the House. He also wished to observe that he was perfectly correct in the statement which he made with respect to General Pinelli. As soon as the proclamation issued by that General came to the knowledge of the Sardinian Government he was recalled. He had also been informed that the pension granted to the family of Milano for the attempted assassination of the King of Naples was no longer paid. One of the first acts of M. Farini when he became the representative of the King of Sardinia was to put an end to that pension.
THE MARQUESS OF NORMANBYsaid, he was glad to hear the explanation which had been made by his noble Friend. It was because he had reason to believe that there been such a communication as the noble Baron had mentioned between the Neapolitan agent and Her Majesty's Government that he had pressed for the papers for which he had asked, and that he was surprised to find no mention of it in the blue book. As to General Pinelli, if his information was correct, that General issued a proclamation something like the celebrated one of Gesler, ordering that any one who neglected to salute the arms of Sardinia should be shot. He remained in command of the army for two months after that, and during that period many of the atrocities of which he complained were committed. It was true that he afterwards issued a second proclamation which very much resembled the production of a madman, and that he was immediately afterwards recalled; but he was recalled, not because he issued that proclamation, but because he communicated it to a reactionary paper, The Armonia, in Turin, with the observation, "I trust this will satisfy you." This gross breach of military discipline was the ground given for his recall. He was very glad to hear that the payment of the disgraceful pension to the family of Milano had been stopped.

TRADE-MARKS BILL.

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  THE LORD CHANCELLOR, in moving the second reading of this Bill said, he had received a number of communications from chambers of commerce, eminent manufacturing firms, expressing their delight at the prospect of at last obtaining protection for their trade marks! The evil which the Bill was designed to prevent was a very serious one. The forgery of these marks inflicted a double injury on manufacturers, for it brought discredit upon their productions as well as robbed them of the fruits of their skill and industry, and it was carried on to a very great extent. Hitherto there had been no remedy against it except by an application to the Court of Chancery or a suit at common law. It was proposed in this Bill to make the forgery of trade marks a misdemeanour, liable to the punishment of fine or imprisonment. It had been suggested by some members of the mercantile community that there ought to be a registration of trade marks throughout the United Kingdom; that no trade mark should receive protection which was not registered; and that registration should be accepted as conclusive evidence of the property in such a mark. He believed, however, that the machinery to carry out such a system would be very complicated and expensive, and that the measure was better as it stood. There were also clauses in the Bill making it a misdemeanour in any one to use labels stating falsely the quantity or quality of the goods to which they were attached. He was doubtful whether he should retain the clause of the Bill with reference to works of art, as it might perhaps be found to come in more appropriately in the Bill which had been introduced into the other House on the copyright of such works.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.
  LORD CHELMSFORDapproved generally of the measure, but believed that Amendments might be introduced in Committee to render its operation more effectual.
  Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the whole House on Friday next.

CASE OF MR. TURNBULL.

  SELECT COMMITTEE MOVED FOR.
  THE MARQUESS OF NORMANBY,in rising to move for the Appointment of a
  1272
  Select Committee to Inquire into the Circumstances that attended the Appointment and Resignation of Mr. Turnbull in the Record Office, said he had been led to change the form of the Motion, not from any choice of his own, but on account of the extraordinary conduct of the Government in regard to the papers presented to the House. The very day after the Prime Minister refused the prayer of the memorialists he (the Marquess of Normanby) fixed an early day for his Motion, in compliance with the wish of the noble Earl below him (the Earl of Shaftesbury). On the Thursday he also moved for the papers presented to the House of Commons, which he was informed at the Rolls Office would be ready the next day; but it was not till the Tuesday following that they were delivered. That delay, which was due to the management, or mismanagement of the Home Office, obliged him to postpone his Motion, and subsequent events caused him to alter its form. The day after that for which his Motion was originally fixed, he found that a Minute had been issued by the Treasury accepting the resignation of Mr. Turnbull. He must say that it was very unusual, and by no means respectful to their Lordships, that, after a Motion had been given notice of and papers moved for, those papers should he withheld so as to compel a postponement of the Motion, and that the transaction should then be completed which was to be called in question. He held that their Lordships were entitled to explanation from the Government on that point. Another point which he thought it desirable should be investigated by a Select Committee, was the relative responsibility of the different departments of the Government in regard to appointments of this kind. He always understood that it was quite out of the regular course for the First Lord to interfere in departmental arrangements, although no doubt he could do so if he chose and his Colleagues acquiesced. That was certainly the rule: when he was in office himself twenty years ago as Home Secretary, he should have been much surprised if the Prime Minister had assumed any personal responsibility as to the appointments he made with reference to the State Paper Office; and, therefore, so far as he could learn, the Prime Minister had deviated from the usual practice by appearing as the chief agent in the acceptance of Mr. Turnbull's resignation. He thought that an inquiry by a Committee

  1273
  would be the means of eliciting the whole truth. He had heard many noble Lords who expressed regret that the Record Department should have lost the services of Mr. Turnbull, ask why Mr. Turnbull resigned? It was the weak part of Mr. Turnbull's case. But he could assure their Lordships, on his own responsibility, that undeniable evidence could be produced to show that the resignation was caused by direct interference with the head of the Record Department on the part of Lord Palmerston. He should he able to show that Lord Palmerston, up to a certain time, did not altogether approve the views of the Protestant Alliance. In July 1860 the noble Lord told a deputation who waited on him with reference to Mr. Turnbull that they had not a leg to stand on, and that if an attempt were made to press the case against Mr. Turnbull, no man, whatever his position, would be safe. The noble Lord was reported to have told the noble Earl (the Earl of Shaftesbury) that he viewed such subjects through a green lens, and that he had better clear his eyesight. This was the noble Lord's tone up to the summer of 18b0. But Lord Palmerston's opinions must have greatly changed; for a short time before the meeting of Parliament this year he had every reason to believe that he should be able to prove that Lord Palmerston wrote a letter to the Master of the Rolls to this effect:—"I bear that the appointment of Mr. Turnbull is to be attacked. If it is attacked you must defend it on your own responsibility. I cannot defend it." How could the resignation be said to be voluntary if the head of the Department was deprived of the support of the Minister, and Mr. Turnbull was harassed for months by the most insidious and unfair suspicions? The only ground of defence which Lord Palmerston used, when he was waited upon with the late deputation, was that Mr. Turnbull had volunteered his resignation. Could it be said, under the state of facts which he had suggested, that Mr. Turnbull was not forced to resign, or that he was to be blamed for having resigned? With regard to the charges against Mr. Turnbull, that gentleman himself, having completed the first volume of the work on which he was engaged, gave notice to all those who had been most severe in their attacks upon him, to judge what would be by what had been done. He invited them to examine the work, and see if they could find
  1274
  any fault with it. But, instead of adopting that fair and honourable course, the insinuations were continued, and the attacks repeated, until he tendered his resignation to the head of the Department. The resignation was not unconditionally accepted, because it appeared by the papers that the Master of the Rolls distinctly declared that he would do all in his power to persuade the Treasury not to accept it. It was put by the Master of the Rolls on the grounds both of detriment to the public service, and of cruelty to an individual. Yet the only reply vouchsafed by Lord Palmerston was the interlocutory answer which he gave to the deputation. If this Committee were appointed, the scruples arising from the official position of the Master of the Rolls would be at an end, and although he had had no communication with that learned Judge since the final decision of Lord Palmerston, he had no doubt the Master of the Rolls would come forward fearlessly to speak the whole truth. In this case the character and fortune of an English gentleman were concerned, and also to a certain extent, the character of an eminent lawyer, an officer of State, who sat on the judicial bench. Their Lordships' House was not only the permanent branch of the Legislature, but the highest Court of justice in the land, and he could not suppose for a moment that their Lordships' would by refusing this Committee close this question and refuse to hear the truth upon it. With regard to the quotation by Mr. Turnbull, in his letter to the Earl of Shaftesbury, of a passage from the Athnæum newspaper, adopted by the Protestant Alliance, nothing could be more complete than the disclaimer of the noble Earl (Earl Shaftesbury) of the main portion of the article. The Athenâum adopted the last monthly Report of the Protestant Alliance, but it is to be regretted that he attempted to avert the charge of having groundlessly allowed it in that publication to be believed that the appointment of this gentleman bad caused discord in the Record Office, by saying that the paragraph meant the newspaper office, not the public department. Why, when was there ever anything but peace in the interior of a newspaper office? It is only when its products come forth that we "let slip the dogs of war." The absurdity of this pretence to avoid a charge of misrepresentation by an allusion to the Record newspaper is proved by the fact that the words were not printed in italics. But as to the statement that Mr. Turnbull

  1275
  was engaged to write the religious history of the reign of Queen Mary, it had never been withdrawn, although almost every one connected with the Protestant Alliance had admitted that it was entirely untrue. As for the preface which Mr. Turnbull had written for one of the publications of the Abbots-ford Club, that was twenty years ago. Only forty copies of it were printed, and he was entirely at a loss to understand how it could have been brought against him at this time, until he received a letter from Edinburgh, stating that when Mr. Turnbull was in Edinburgh he was one of the most strenuous supporters of Lord Macaulay at an election where Sir Culling Eardley, one of the chief members of the Protestant Alliance, stood against him. Probably, therefore, one of Sir Culling Eardley's zealous friends had endeavoured in this way to reward him. At the interview which a deputation had with Lord Palmerston on the subject, his Lordship laid much stress on the facts that the emolument was small, and that the duties were very nearly concluded. If the emolument was small, that was principally the fault of the Treasury; but his Lordship was quite mistaken in saying that the work was nearly concluded. He might have seen that from the letter of the Master of the Rolls, offering Mr. Turnbull the appointment, in which he stated that if the Government continued the grant hitherto allowed, the employment would be one which would not be concluded for some years. There was nothing in this preface to this publication, The Life of Father Southwell, to justify the statement of Lord Palmerston, that Mr. Turnbull had said that "he would rather be damned with the Catholics than saved with the Protestants." The word used by Mr. Turnbull was "Puritans," and though the phrase might be rather a strong one, it was provoked by the reading of the tracts and pamphlets issued by the Puritans at that time. It was stated also that Mr. Turnbull had eulogized Babington's conspiracy as a "gallant confederacy," but any one who would look at the passage would see that there was nothing of eulogy in it. He himself it was well known was no admirer of Garibaldi's schemes, but if at any time he had spoken of "Garibaldi and his 'gallant' confederates," it would have been just as much a panegyric as was Mr. Turnbull's language in regard to Babington's conspiracy. It had been said of himself by an organ in direct communication with the Go-
  1276
  vernment that he could not possibly have taken up this matter from pure and public motives; but he had been so much exposed to attacks of this kind that he had grown quite callous. Still he might be permitted to say that, during his life, in the various employments which he had held, he had often been called on to give effect to those great principles of civil and religious liberty and equal toleration which he had always professed. The first words he had ever uttered in public life were in favour of the removal of Roman Catholic disabilities, and that was in very good company and with very good success. Some years afterwards, when he was employed in the Government of Jamaica, he was able to secure the lives and property of the Dissenters there, at some personal exertions, and with certainly a great sacrifice of local popularity. For this service, when he returned to England, he received the thanks of all the Dissenting bodies here. After that, when in Ireland, he bad tried to give practical operation to emancipation; and when in Italy he had done all in his power to protect the liberties of the Italian Protestants, and on quitting his mission at Florence he received a vote of thanks from the Italian Protestants for what he had done for them and the extent to which he had ameliorated their position. Therefore, he was only applying to this case the principle of civil and religious liberty, which he had always professed and acted upon. That he thought was a sufficient answer to the charge that he was not actuated by public spirit in this matter of Mr. Turnbull. So many years after the Catholic Emancipation Act had been in operation he did not expect to see the Government sanction such an act of injustice. The noble Earl who represented the Government in this House had been educated by the most distinguished of the disciples of Mr. Canning, who would be principally known to posterity by his persevering exertions, under adverse circumstances, in favour of Catholic Emancipation; and, looking at the occupants of the Bench opposite, he should be surprised if the followers of Sir Robert Peel, who had opposed the Durham letter and its consequences, now supported so capricious an exercise of power on the part of the Prime Minister, whereby Roman Catholics seemed to be deprived of the privileges and the toleration which of late years had been assured to them in this country. It would have a most injurious effect if the opinion were allowed to go forth that from

  1277
  this time forward a Prime Minister would be justified in removing any individual from office on account of his religious views. Twenty-five years ago, upon the accession of Her present Majesty, Lord John Russell had declared the Queen's desire to see her Roman Catholic subjects in the full enjoyment of the civil and religious liberty to which they were fully entitled, adding in a letter addressed to himself (Lord Normanby), the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland.
  "She is persuaded that when invidious distinctions are altogether obliterated, her throne will be still more secure, and her people still more devoted."
  Since then the Government of this country had been, for the most part in the hands of Lord Palmerston and Lord John Russell, and he regretted that so little progress had since been made in the direction indicated in the above letter, that there should at this day be such an exhibition of illiberality on the part of any persons as could give rise to the letter to the Master of the Rolls. In that letter Sir John Romilly expressed—
  "The pain I feel that any society of English gentlemen, professedly founded on religious principles, should have been found to exist in this country who have considered it consistent with the charity on which those principles are based to endeavour, by ex parte statements and confidential canvassing, to remove from an employment for which he is peculiarly fitted a gentleman so honourable and trustworthy as I consider you to be."
  Such underhand proceedings, such unjust suspicions—indeed, such foul play, were little calculated to consolidate religious peace among different classes of the community; still less was it by such means that Protestants of the Church of England could vindicate what they held to be the truth. Mr. Turnbull had all along asked to be heard, and the evidence would establish that he had resigned entirely because he found he should not be supported by the head of the Government. He could not think that an assembly like that which he was addressing would refuse such an inquiry, and he hoped, therefore, that their Lordships would agree to the Motion which he now submitted to them.
  Moved,
  "That a Select Committee be appointed to inquire into the Circumstances that attended the Appointment and Resignation of Mr. Turnbull in the Record Office."
  THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURY: I shall detain your Lordships but a very few
  1278
  minutes, because I can say but little beyond that which has been already stated on this subject, and the arguments on both sides are now pretty well known. There used to be a very good rule in the House of Commons—I do not know whether it prevails here—namely, that whenever a matter becomes the subject of a law-suit, and is pending in one of the Courts of law, no discussion shall take place respecting it. Now, it does so happen that a lawsuit is pending here. The Secretary of the Protestant Alliance has received an intimation that proceedings will be taken against him for libel by Mr. Turnbull; counsel have been retained, and in the course of a short time the whole matter must come under the jurisdiction of the courts of law. In cases of this kind the House of Commons deem it highly inexpedient that there should be a public discussion. However, as that does not appear to be the opinion of the House of Lords. I will proceed with the remarks which I have to make. In the first place, the noble Marquess is altogether incorrect when he states that a deputation waited on Lord Palmerston in 1859, and that the Premier then took a very different view upon Mr. Turnbull's appointment, telling the deputation that they had no locus standi. In 1859 there was no deputation at all. There was no deputation until the 25th of July, 1860. The statements of the noble Marquess respecting a certain conversation which I had with Lord Palmerston, and the many choice expressions which he detailed in reference to it, are complete fabrications; not emanating, of course, from the noble Marquess, but from those who have supplied him with information. My only conversation with Lord Palmerston on this subject was that which I held with him, in the presence of some forty or fifty gentlemen, in July, 1860; and from that time I had no communication with him, either by writing or word of mouth, except once, when I met him and asked whether any representations had been made to Sir John Romilly on the subject. That is the sole conversation I have had with Lord Palmerston on this question. I shall now confine myself altogether to the four corners of the memorial presented in July, 1860, for which I hold myself responsible in connection with those who presented it. With regard to this memorial, we are told—and the noble Marquess reiterated the charge—that this was a secret movement. I deny

  1279
  it. On the 4th of June—the deputation having waited on Lord Palmerston in July—an official letter was sent to Sir John Romilly, giving him a full account of the whole proceeding, the object of the movement, and, not specifically, but generally, of the grounds on which the deputation would proceed, or on which the members of the Alliance disapproved Mr. Turnbull's appointment. The next charge is that it was insinuated that Mr. Turnbull would tamper with the papers—that he would suppress or interpolate papers committed to his care. These are not the words of the Protestant Alliance; they are taken, I believe, from the memorial presented to Lord Palmerston by the noble Marquess and others with a view to induce him not to accept Mr. Turnbull's resignation. I ask where these expressions are taken from? By whom were these charges made? Were they made in writing, or by word of mouth? I maintain that such a statement has never been made in one publication or by any one person connected with the Protestant Alliance. In the memorial presented to Lord Palmerston on behalf of Mr. Turnbull it is stated—
  "Neither, it is believed, would any objection have been made to Mr. Turnbull's appointment if a literary paper had not insinuated that he was employed on the history of religion in England. That insinuation was false."
  Now, in what way was that paper pressed into the service? On this point I must ask your Lordships' attention to dates. The memorialists say if that paragraph had not appeared no objection would have been made to Mr. Turnbull's appointment. Now, observe, Mr. Turnbull was appointed in 1859; the deputation to present the memorial against it took place on the 25th of July, 1860; Mr. Turnbull did not resign his office till the 28th of January of the present year; and the article alluded to in the literary paper was not written till the 2nd of February, 1861. And yet we are told by the memorial that that paragraph was the cause of the opposition to the appointment. The next charge is that Mr. Turnbull's appointment was objected to solely on the ground that he is by religion a Roman Catholic. I deny that. I deny it on my own part, and I can, I am satisfied, deny it on the part of many others who act with me. The noble Marquess stated—not here, but in another place—that if the principle of such an objection were carried into effect, Mr. Panizzi would have to be re-
  1280
  moved from the charge of the British Museum. I am glad the noble Marquess furnished me with so good an illustration. If Mr. Panizzi had been appointed to the j duty of making abstracts of these records, I undertake to say that not a living soul in England or Scotland would have said a I word against the appointment, because his 'judgment and impartiality and known to all we know that he is a man of very calm mind, and not likely to be influenced by his feelings. The main objection to Mr. Turnbull was founded on the peculiarity of his opinions, combined with the peculiarity of his duties. I have put down the charges head by head; and, in answer to them, what I mean to say is this—I maintain that the objection to Mr. Turnbull was founded on the peculiarity of his disposition and temperament, the peculiarity of his feelings, and his very ardent and hasty judgment. To have a full understanding of the question we must consider the peculiar nature of the duties Mr. Turnbull had to perform, and I maintain that those duties require in every department great accuracy and great calmness. In proof of this observe what is said in the 20th Report of the Office of Records; in that Report Sir John Romilly states—
  "Whenever records have been considered valueless they have been transmitted to the Stationery Office for destruction, to be converted into waste paper."
  "The documents contain the whole of the materials for the history of this country, in every branch and under every aspect, civil, religious, political, social, moral, or material."
  And, again—
  "They constitute the backbone of our civil, ecclesiastical, and political history."
  Now, it requires a person of great judgment and impartiality to decide which of these documents are valuable and which are not. How impossible is it to judge of the character of such documents unless they are considered without any undue bias, and with all the lights that can be brought to bear upon them. Well, it being known that such is the character of the Records, when Mr. Turnbull was appointed to the office, many persons, naturally enough, began to consider what were his antecedents, to ascertain whether he was a proper man to have charge of such important papers. The memorialists state—
  "That the duty of such an appointment will be to make an outline or short abstract of documents which refer to the important religious struggles on the Continent, such as the Thirty Years' War

  1281
  the War of Independence in Holland, the Wars of the Huguenots, the Dragonnades of Louis XIV., and to the treasonable attempts and plans of the Jesuits against the life of Queen Elizabeth and the safety of the realm of England. That to discharge faithfully and satisfactorily the duties of such an office, great impartiality and calm discrimination are essential, as the religious opinions of the person appointed as Calendarer cannot otherwise than seriously affect the value and truthfulness of the abstract to be prepared. That Mr. Turnbull is not only a Roman Catholic, but an avowed defender and admirer of the Jesuits, for whom he expresses, in his Life of Father Southwell, a 'natural bias,' and holds them in 'the highest veneration, honour, and esteem,' and has, in the same work, manifested this ' natural bias' by calling the Jesuit priest Garnet, who was implicated in the Gunpowder Plot, a 'well-known martyr,' and the conspiracy of Babington against the life of Elizabeth and the State of England a ' gallant confederacy,' that in another work he designated the Reformation 'a mischievous event.'"
  The memorialists further state—
  "That a person who has expressed such strong sympathy for the Jesuits, and antipathy to those who opposed their atrocious designs, and who thus defamed the glorious Reformation, is most unfit to be intrusted with the valuable foreign papers under his control, and to be commissioned to prepare an official abstract of the same."
  This memorial was signed by 2,500 persons of the educated classes of society, of whom 10 were peers, 19 Members of Parliament, 10 baronets, 85 magistrates, 518 clergymen, 553 Dissenting ministers, besides several generals, admirals, and other officers in the army and navy, heads of colleges, literary and other gentlemen. A memorial from the Scottish Reformation Society was signed by 3,500 persons; the Committee of the Religious Tract Society also presented a memorial against the appointment. Now, I maintain that to express an opinion that a person of Mr. Turnbull's feelings and disposition is unqualified for duties of the description specified involves no reflection on his character. Why, my Lords, suppose any one were to nominate me as an inspector of Roman Catholic schools, could anything be more inappropriate? Suppose I had to report on the condition of Benedictine monasteries or nunneries—would it be possible for me to report on them with any degree of impartiality? A Presbyterian who has written to a friend of mine says, "Should I be fit to have charge of the manuscripts in the Vatican?" Why, my Lords, you are yourselves disqualified from performing some duties. If it were proposed to run a railroad through any part of my property I should be told by our noble Chairman of Committees that I could not sit as one of a Committee on
  1282
  that particular Bill; but I should not consider this any reflection on my character. It ought not to be regarded as any reflection on the character of Mr. Turnbull to say that he could not give an impartial consideration to certain questions. In making abstracts of such records much depends on a few words, which may be important or unimportant according as they are viewed. They may be affected by the suppression, the alteration, or the addition of a single word. To deal with them impartially the mind should be calm, dispassionate, and able to weigh both sides of the questions involved. These documents must be regarded in a Protestant as well as in a Roman Catholic light. But the strong opinions expressed in Mr. Turnbull's writings show that in his case this would be impossible; they prove him to be impetuous, ardent, and hasty in his judgments. See how he speaks of Protestants. He says—
  "Look at the vile and pestilentially rampant heresies from Calvinism downwards, and are any redeeming qualities to be found in alt their vagaries?"
  How could a person holding such strong views avoid giving a colour to every abstract he might make of events in which the differences of the two religious systems were concerned? In the preface to a book published some years ago by Mr. Turnbull, the whole of which is couched in very strong terms, he concludes—
  "I will do my duty in all that lies in my power to aid in the extinction of heresy and the establishment of the Catholic Church of Christ on earth; and I declare that I had rather be condemned with a papist than be saved with a Puritan."
  Now, my Lords, I maintain that it is impossible that a man who could write so strongly upon a matter so serious, who exercises such little control over his feelings —it is impossible that he can give a fair and dispassionate abstract of any papers relating to the great controversy between Roman Catholics and Protestants. I solemnly declare that if I had been in the position of Sir John Romilly, and parties had come to me and proved to me that a Protestant had exhibited such temper, and such an incapability for being impartial upon those matters I would not have appointed him, but I would have said, however much I might admire his zeal and ability, that he was totally unfit to be intrusted with such delicate duties. The memorial concludes by expressing a hope that the appointment might be cancelled;

  1283
  but I myself took the lead in that matter, and induced most of the deputation to concur with me; and when we waited upon Lord Palmerston we urged upon his Lordship not that the appointment should be cancelled, but that Mr. Turnbull should be removed to some other situation. I engaged in this matter very reluctantly, and only because I felt it to be a duty; but I was always most unwilling to appear even to act with any degree of personality against an individual, or to do anything to injure the prospects of a learned gentleman. I believe Mr. Turnbull to be a man of industry, of talent, and of learning, and I also believe him to be a man of warm feelings and fine heart; and I say now publicly, as I have said before privately, that it would give me sincere pleasure—as I believe it would also to many of those who went up with me as a deputation—if Mr. Turnbull could be appointed to some other situation where his peculiar opinions would not be detrimental to the public service. Those are the grounds upon which I have acted, and that is the answer which I give to the noble Marquess who has made this Motion.
  EARL GRANVILLE: I confess I thought it was desirable that the noble Earl should follow the noble Marquess who has moved for a Committee, because it appeared to me that the noble Marquess entirely omitted to give any statement of facts to justify a charge against the Government. I thought it was desirable that the House should have some facts before it, and I was not able myself to give a full account of the proceedings in this matter, because I have made a point of not inquiring into the particular question between Mr. Turnbull and the Protestant Alliance. I, therefore, thought it better to permit the noble Earl to interpose with his statement. I may briefly refer to the circumstances which gave rise to the appointment. Some years ago when Sir Robert Peel was in office he made a beginning of arranging the State papers, and to print certain of them; but the selected State papers belonging to the reign of Henry VIII. alone occupied eleven printed volumes, and the bulk and the expense were found to be so great that the plan was abandoned. Some four or five years ago the State Paper Office was transferred, to the Record Office, and, being desirous of making those papers more available to students of history, Sir John Romilly suggested to Sir George Lewis that it would; be an enormous advantage if the papers
  1284
  were calendared, abstracts made, and properly indexed. Sir John Romilly, however, said that the strength of the office staff was not equal to the undertaking. He applied to the Lords of the Treasury who agreed to allow the sum necessary for the purpose of employing proper persons, but at the same time informed him that he must take upon himself all the responsibility of the appointments, as it was impossible for the Treasury to investigate the claims of persons who might be recommended as qualified for the duties. Sir John Romilly accepted that responsibility, and, acting upon that arrangement, he appointed three persons. The first was a lady, Mrs. Everett Green, who was remarkably skilled and qualified for the duties. Sir John Romilly proceeded upon the principle of inquiring into the fitness of applicants for the appointment, and into their characters, without any reference to the particular creed of religion they might profess. In the same way he appointed Mr. Bruce, and then Mr. Turnbull, who was recommended to him as a fit person and a man of high character. I am not aware of any proceedings taking place after the appointment of Mr. Turnbull until a deputation waited upon Lord Palmerston asking him to consider their objections to Mr. Turnbull, and requesting that that gentleman might be removed to some other office. The noble Marquess spoke as though he were astonished that a First Lord of the Treasury should interfere in a matter of this sort, and quoted his own official experience to show that nothing of the kind had ever been done before. I never heard so extraordinary a statement as that when a First Lord of the Treasury receives a large deputation of gentlemen upon a subject connected with a Government department he is not to place himself in communication with the head of that department. But the noble Lord at the head of the Government having received this deputation and having also received memorials numerously signed, was in the habit of writing letters, strictly private, to Sir John Romilly—letters written in a colloquial tone, such as might be expected between two old colleagues in office—asking for information; and the result was that he refused to accede to the request for Mr. Turnbull's dismissal. In the course of the autumn some further private notes passed between the First Lord of the Treasury and Sir John Romilly in which, after reference was made to the great agitation which existed in the public

  1285
  mind, and to the fact that it did appear that Mr. Turnbull was a man of extreme polemical opinions, the noble Lord asked whether it was not possible to change his employment; and being told that no other employment could be found for him in the office, the point was not pressed. I think Sir John Romilly was justified in the course he took of appointing this gentleman; but when warm remonstrances were made against it Sir John Romilly had a course open to him if he chose to adopt it, to refuse the resignation of Mr. Turnbull. He might have said he would not accept the resignation, that he considered himself responsible for the appointment, and would not annul it. I wish to avoid entering upon the question between Mr. Turnbull and the Protestant Alliance. A question was asked the other day to which the noble Earl has not. I think, given any answer—what was the nature of the Protestant Alliance—but I suppose we all know pretty well what that body is. In this country it is quite open to any persons to associate together to promote their particular views; and as persons associate together on political questions, so also is it open to them to join together for the promotion of the views of religion which are dear to them. It is natural that those who may be thus associated should from time to time criticize appointments, measures, and other proceedings which they may think affect their principles or objects. But on the one hand, when bodies of this character are formed, comprehending Members of this and the other House of Parliament, possessing a very extensive organization, and placing themselves under the presidency of any one filling so large a space in the public eye as the noble Earl (the Earl of Shaftesbury), they ought to be particularly careful not to take any step which, even though quite right in itself, may connect Protestantism, so dear to Englishmen, with any notions of intolerance. On the other hand, it is to be observed that it is unfair to visit with undue severity the conduct of any society or any individual engaged in prosecuting a public object. I will not attempt to determine how far the Protestant Alliance was justified in its course upon this matter. I leave that point to the noble Marquess on the one side, and the noble Earl, the President of that institution, on the other. With respect to Mr. Turnbull I have no fault to find with that gentleman for anything he has done in connection with the duties of his office.
  1286
  I am assured by competent persons that he has performed his abstracts very well and very fairly. It is, however, a question which has raised different opinions whether Mr. Turnbull was well advised in the step he took of placing his resignation into Sir John Romilly's hands in such an absolute and unqualified manner before the Government. He did this against the advice of Sir John Romilly, whose official and political experience entitled him to great weight, who was also responsible for this appointment, and in whose bands Mr. Turnbull might, therefore, have felt himself perfectly safe. The noble Marquess says Mr. Turnbull was acquainted with the views of Lord Palmerston on the subject. The noble Marquess must have been misinformed, because how is it possible to believe that Sir John Romilly should have communicated to Mr. Turnbull the contents of a private letter from the noble Viscount—especially, too, as he was particularly anxious that that gentleman should not resign the office in which he was engaged? But, even if Mr. Turnbull had had some information of this sort, and had been induced by it to offer his resignation, he ought not to have given in so absolute a resignation, but to have said that his own conscience told him he was right, and he was prepared to discharge his duties; but that unfair attacks had been made against him, and if the Government felt that any embarrassment or disadvantage would attend his continuance in his situation he was willing to relinquish it into their hands. At the same time I make no complaint against Mr. Turnbull for not doing this. He is a gentleman not much accustomed to public life, and, therefore, perhaps very sensitive to the attacks that were made upon him. Now I come to the conduct of Lord Palmerston. And here I appeal to noble Lords on either side of this House whether, in respect to official patronage it does not very often happen, in considering the claims of different candidates for an appointment, that, although a man may appear perfectly fit for the discharge of certain duties, yet some of his antecedents are such as to inspire in the public mind a want of confidence in which the patron himself may not share, but which, nevertheless, makes it desirable to intrust the office to some other person. I know nothing of Mr. Bruce's religious opinions, but if it had come to Sir John Romilly's knowledge, before appointing that gentleman, that he had been engaged in a hot controversy

  1287
  either with Roman Catholics, Dissenters, or the Church of England, that circumstance might have made him hesitate before finally selecting Mr. Bruce for such a position. That reasoning, however, does not apply to a man who is already in an office, and, therefore, I think it was perfectly right in Lord Palmerston to reject the application that was made to him in 1860 in this case. The noble Marquess is himself a man of great literary attainments and high personal honour, but if he were to be chosen for the purpose of making a catalogue raisonné or abstract of the materials for the lives of the present Cabinet, I should say the public mind would hardly regard the selection as a highly judicious one—not because he was now opposed to them in his political views, but because he has avowed and almost boasted of a personal hostility against Lord Palmerston which, I am sure, is not entertained by any other Member of this House, on whatever side he may sit. I much doubt whether Sir John Romilly, when he appointed Mr. Turnbull, had any reason to suspect that he was a man of very warm and zealous political feeling; but Lord Palmerston has been of opinion, rightly or wrongly, ever since the point was raised, that Mr. Turnbull was not the fittest person for such an office, not because he was a Roman Catholic, but because of his warm temper and strong controversial tendencies. Therefore, when an absolute and unqualified resignation was placed in his hands, that noble Lord had a perfect right to say, "Either this is meant to be a perfectly straightforward and sincere expression of a wish on Mr. Turnbull's part to get rid of an office that has been made disagreeable to him, or else it has been a sort of arrangement by which is to be thrown on me the responsibility of giving, in fact, a new appointment to a person who, in my judgment, is not the most suitable person for such a situation." This is the simple case as regards Lord Palmerston. I leave it to your Lordships to say whether his conduct in this matter—apart from your knowledge of his personal character—has been in any way underhand.
  THE MARQUESS OF NORMANBYwas understood to explain that he had spoken of the Protestant Alliance.
  EARL GRANVILLE: The noble Marquess appealed to me as the son of one who was the friend of Mr. Canning, and, therefore, naturally interested in Catholic Emancipation. Now, I have always re-
  1288
  garded the Act of 1829 as one of the most glorious Acts of the present century. It was not my fate to take any share whatever in passing that measure. There are very few persons in this House to whom it was possible to take the part which Lord Palmerston took in regard to it. The noble Marquess speaks of his own devotion to that cause; but the noble Viscount lived at a time when popular prejudice ran high, and yet, when the entire political party with which he was associated were against the Catholic claims, and also when the majority of his colleagues in office were opposed to them, he not only constantly supported those claims by his speeches and votes, but lost his seat in contesting Cambridge on that very subject. The whole conduct of Lord Palmerston ever since has been consistent on that question, and I must say this is the very first time I have ever heard the noble Viscount attacked for a want of respect to religious freedom. In casually looking over Hansard I lighted upon a speech delivered by the noble Viscount two years ago, which affords some answer to the noble Marquess's insinuation that Lord Palmerston, because he objects to one particular person on account of his strong controversial views, objects to Catholics holding office. The speech was made in support of the Roman Catholic Relief Bill when the question was raised whether the Lord Chancellorship of Ireland should be open to Catholics. The noble Viscount then declared, in the broadest and most distinct manner, that the spirit of the Emancipation Act was that every Roman Catholic should be admitted to every office excepting those connected with ecclesiastical authority. Why, the very last appointment made by the noble Viscount was that of a distinguished Roman Catholic gentleman; and in this he did not act in a very worldly-wise manner, because, it is said, he will lose two votes in consequence. I know that there are some noble Lords—the noble Marquess, for instance—and that there are many able and conscientious Catholics who object to the sympathy which the noble Viscount is known to feel with the Italians in their struggle at the present, moment. Catholics object to it because a great many of them are not able in their own minds to disconnect the question of the spiritual from that of the temporal power of the Pope. But Lord Palmerston has not based his policy upon any religious aversions or predilections. He has based

  1289
  it upon exactly the same principle which induced him to give his sympathy and his active support to the Catholic population of Belgium, when, nearly thirty years ago, they were struggling against the domination of a Protestant King; and really, when the noble Marquess talks as if he was a consistent lover of liberty, and Lord Palmerston was departing from the principles which he has previously professed, it seems to me to be drawing a very false conclusion from the premises. I think your Lordships will hesitate before granting this Committee on the merits of the case itself, even if it was not out of the question for the purely technical reason alluded to by the noble Earl opposite.
  THE EARL OF DERBY: My Lords, in whatever difficulty we may be placed in arguing this question by the extreme meagreness of the documents which have been presented to us by the Government, which in itself seems to me to be a reason for agreeing to the Motion of the noble Marquess for further inquiry into the circumstances of the case, I can, at least, profess that I approach its consideration without prejudice and without partiality. I have no personal or any other acquaintance with the gentleman whose case is so prominently before your Lordships; as far as I am acquainted with the opinions which he holds, or which are imputed to him, they are opinions from which I differ toto cœlo. I am from conviction a very sincere adherent of the Church of England: the gentleman whose case is before you is one who, to use the expression of an Irish newspaper, has "renounced the errors of Protestantism, and has embraced those of Roman Catholicism." Mr. Turnbull is an enthusiastic admirer of the Society of Jesus. I, in common, I think, with all your Lordships, see a great deal to admire in the zeal, the energy, the perseverance, and the devotedness to their object which characterize the members of that important society; but I think that their principles of moral action are detestable, and that their influence upon society, more especially upon domestic peace is most prejudicial and most dangerous. Mr. Turnbull deplores the Reformation as an unfortunate event; I consider it to be one of the greatest blessings which ever fell to the lot of this country. He regrets the dissolution of the monasteries; I believe that there were such evils accompanying their continued existence as to render their dissolution necessary, and even to excuse the manner in which it was car-
  1290
  ried out. It is said that Mr. Turnbull has expressed—whether seriously or not I do not know—the opinion that he would rather be eternally lost in company with Papists than saved with Puritans. That, again, is a matter of taste, as to which I entirely differ from Mr. Turnbull; and, in charity to him, I can only hope that he may not have pressed upon him the alternative which he has chosen. But really all this has nothing to do with the case. Mr. Turnbull's religious and political opinions have nothing to do with the question which is now before your Lordships. It is not even a question whether the appointment of Mr. Turnbull was in the first instance a judicious one. The question is whether Mr. Turnbull having been, upon the recommendation of the Master of the Rolls, appointed to this office, and having, according to universal consent, fulfilled its duties with probity, faithfulness, and ability, whether he has received from the Government that protection against anonymous and underhand attacks which every man in the public service has a right to expect from those by whom he has been appointed, and to whom he is answerable for the conduct of his department. That is the only question before your Lordships, and I beg that you will not be led away from its consideration by any reference to what Mr. Turnbull's feelings may have been, or by any discussion as to whether those feelings were strong enough to render his original appointment an improper one. I certainly was anxious to know upon what grounds my noble Friend opposite would place the refusal of a Committee to inquire into the circumstances of the case as to which we have had a great deal of contradictory evidence—if I may use the word evidence—at all events of contradictory statement on the part of the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Normanby) and my noble Friend below me (the Earl of Shaftesbury). The only ground upon which I can find that my noble Friend rests his refusal to consent to the appointment of this Committee is that a charge has been brought against Lord Palmerston of general indifference or general dislike to the Roman Chatholic religion. I must say that nothing is further from my mind than to impute any such feeling to the noble Viscount; nor do I think that any such idea ever entered the head of the noble Marquess. It only shows how very hard pushed my noble Friend opposite must have been for a reason on account of which to object to a Committee of inquiry which

  1291
  is to ascertain facts which are disputed, and upon which the question rests as to whether or not Mr. Turnbull has had justice done to him. My noble Friend said "apart from the technical ground" upon which my noble Friend below me had placed the question; what was the technical ground? The technical ground was that the Secretary of the Protestant Alliance had been charged by Mr. Turnbull with publishing a libel against him, and that legal proceedings were in consequence in progress. When those legal proceedings commenced I do not know. I take it that they must be of very recent origin indeed. Probably we shall hear something more about that; but, whatever they may he or whenever commenced, they do not touch this case. Legal proceedings are taken against the Secretary of the Protestant Alliance for having made unfounded charges, or rather insinuations, against Mr. Turnbull, who proceeds for the vindication of his own character, and the conviction of his libeller—if any one is a libeller—but what has that to do with the case between Mr. Turnbull and Her Majesty's Government—Mr. Turnbull, and the persons by whom he was appointed to office? Now, I said that this question does not turn upon whether this appointment was originally a justifiable or a judicious one or not; but, I am bound to say, moreover, that as far as I have heard from either side of the House, I do not see that there was anything in Mr. Turnbull's opinions which would disqualify him for the faithful performance of the duties which were intrusted to him. If, indeed, Mr. Turnbull, entertaining very strong religious and political opinions—opinions which at the time of which he was to treat were greatly intermixed—had been appointed by the Government, as it was industriously circulated that he had been appointed, to write a history of religion during that time, I should have said that such an appointment would have been a most unfortunate and most injudicious one. But the case is nothing of the sort. Mr. Turnbull, as has been stated by the noble Earl opposite, was appointed, not to write a history—and my noble Friend below me admits that there was no ground for alleging that he had been appointed to write a history—but to examine the various documents in the Foreign State Paper Office of a certain period, to index them, and to make an extensive abstract of their contents, with a reference to the original papers themselves,
  1292
  in order that the public might know where to obtain the accurate information to which the index was to direct them. Now, I am sure that my noble Friend who illustrated the case by supposing himself appointed to conduct an examination of the documents in the Vatican, did injustice to his own sense of probity and honour when he supposed that in such a case he should have an irresistible and irrepressible bias either to mutilate, destroy, or falsify important documents which might appear to militate against his own views. If, then, Mr. Turnbull was not to write a history, but only to make an index and an abstract with references to the actual papers, I ask what possible ground there could be for the suspicion that he would commit an act of such unparalleled folly, and I should say roguery, as not faithfully and honestly to discharge his duties. My noble Friend opposite says that he can conceive it to be very possible that Sir John Romilly might not when he first appointed Mr. Turnbull have been aware of his strong opinions and his strong bias, and that if he had had such knowledge, he might not have appointed him to this office. I see no reason to suppose anything of the kind. On the contrary, Sir John Romilly, not only when he made the appointment, but after a year and a half's experience, when these opinions of Mr. Turnbull had been brought to his notice in the amplest manner by communications from various quarters, expressed in the fullest and most explicit manner, his sense of the probity, integrity, and fidelity with which Mr. Turnbull bad executed his trust. Nay, even the newspaper which is foremost in condemning this appointment is compelled to say that the portion of the work which has appeared in print has, upon the whole, not been badly executed. I am sure that my noble Friend is above making insinuations such as have appeared in certain newspapers against Mr. Turnbull; but he will not deny that there have been, if not imputations, insinuations that his bias is so strong that it would have been impossible for him to resist the temptation which opportunity might place in his way, and that the valuable papers in the Record Office would not be safe with a man of his feelings, and ought not to be intrusted to him. Not safe with Mr. Turnbull! My Lords, if they were not safe, does it not mean that he would either mutilate or destroy them, or get rid of them in some way or other? In some of the statements which

  1293
  have been circulated to prejudice the public mind, I have seen it asked, I think by the Secretary of the Protestant Alliance—
  "What if one of Mr. Turnbull's friends, the Jesuits, were to have an opportunity of abstracting one of these papers, and, being in a room by himself with a good fire, were to wish to get rid of a very inconvenient paper?"
  What is that but imputing the basest of all actions to a man whose character is unimpeachable, has never been impeached, and who, for his fidelity in the discharge of his duties, will retire from office with the signal testimony in his favour of all those persons to whom his labours and exertions have been particularly made known? My Lords, I am told that the noble Viscount himself, on one occasion, expressed the opinion that Mr. Turnbull's views were of so extreme a character that he might have a bias which would be irresistibly opposed to the faithful discharge of the duties intrusted to him. If that be true it shows on the part of the noble Viscount a very low estimate of human character and honour. No doubt David said "all men are liars," but, then, he confesses that he said so in his haste. But the noble Viscount appears to have laid down the principle that all men are rogues—a very singular opinion to come from such a quarter, because it shows how much mankind must have fallen away from that state of purity and sinlessness in which, according to the somewhat peculiar theology of the noble Viscount, they are horn into the world. After having pronounced in favour of the idea that men are born in a state of innocence the noble Viscount is now driven to the conclusion that at a more advanced period of their lives they are not to be trusted under any number of precautions and checks to perform faithfully and honestly the duties of a confidential position. Another illustration of the animus with which the attack upon Mr. Turnbull has been carried on is to be found in the argument which has been used that the extraordinary precautions which were taken for the custody and security of the documents intrusted to Mr. Turnbull's care were a sign that he did not possess the confidence of those who appointed him. The fact is that the rules for the security of the papers were laid down in 1851, eight years before Mr. Turnbull's appointment was thought of; so their stringency has, therefore, no special application to his case. No one pretends, as far as I know—certainly no one in the course of this discussion—that Mr.
  1294
  Turnbull has been guilty of any departure from the strict line of his duty during the eighteen months that he has been labouring, and for which he has received the large, the noble, the munificent remuneration of £218. There is no human being who brings a charge against him; and I say it is contrary to all justice, policy, and wisdom if you desire to have faithful and honourable servants to allow any person whatever who has been appointed to a situation and has been found blameless in it to be whispered and tormented out of it by slanders behind his back, and by imputations upon his honour which he had not an opportunity of refuting. I do not say that there are no cases where an appointment which has once been made should not be cancelled. For instance, on one occasion I appointed a certain number of stipendiary magistrates under the Slavery Abolition Act on the recommendations which I received in the most respectable, and, as I supposed, most trustworthy quarters. Most of the appointments turned out well. I received, however, a letter from the late Mr. Daniel O'Connell with whom, as your Lordships know, I was not on terms of very great intimacy, stating that one of the gentlemen I had appointed had been outlawed, and was at that moment incapacitated from discharging his duties; I at once inquired into the matter, and as soon as I ascertained the truth of the statement I cancelled the appointment, and I wrote to Mr. O'Connell informing him of the fact, and thanking him for having called my attention to it. But that is not at all a case like the present. It was the case of a man who had been legally brought into discredit, and who was incapacitated by law from performing the duties of his office. But Mr. Turnbull having been appointed, whether wisely or not, and the objections against him having been found not to interfere with the faithful discharge of his duties, ought to have been protected by the Government against the insinuations which drove him to resign by the mere force of the irritation and vexation which they caused; and I say that a Government which consents to the dismissal of a faithful servant under such circumstances, does not deserve to have and will not have faithful servants. There are a number of papers which I should like to see which do not appear among those laid before us, such as the memorial of the objectors and the correspondence between the noble Viscount and the Master of the Rolls. It

  1295
  is said that the noble Viscount refused to dismiss Mr. Turnbull in 1860. My noble Friend disputes the accuracy of the terms in which that refusal was couched as represented by the noble Marquess, but be does not dispute the fact that at that time Lord Palmerston deemed it an act of injustice to dismiss Mr. Turnbull. We are told, also, that in February last Mr. Turnbull, goaded by the continued attacks upon him, tendered his resignation; and that the noble Viscount then saw ample grounds for changing his opinion and accepting the resignation, notwithstanding the urgent remonstrances of the Master of the Rolls as to the loss which the public service would thereby sustain. I dare say no one knows better than the noble Viscount at the head of the Government the difference between a resignation and a dismissal. But I do not think he ought to judge other people's feelings by his own in such a case. I should like out of curiosity to know what amount of newspaper vituperation and public criticism would be required to induce the noble Viscount to resign office. I rather suspect that it would be found to be what in algebraic phrase is known as as, or an unknown quantity. No one who has served so long an apprenticeship to official life as the noble Viscount can fail to be tolerably well case-hardened against newspaper or any other attacks. In fact, a man must be very unfitted for public life who does not after a while become as invulnerable as an armour-clad vessel to the assaults of his opponents. On the outside sheathing the effect of the attack may be traced in a scratch or a dimple here or there, but the great majority of the shots fired produce not even a sensible concussion inside. But though politicians, especially of a certain standing, are so happily constituted that is not the case with the rest of the world. Perhaps I ought to except the gentlemen of the legal profession. I have known some very sensitive and touchy lawyers; but, generally speaking, I should say public vituperation has no more effect on them than on the armour-clad class—of course I could not think of attributing their insensibility to attack to the presence of any other metal. The rest of the world are generally of a very sensitive temper, and of all sensitive persons the most sensitive have been from the time of Horace the genus irritabile of authors and literary men, the class to whom Mr. Turnbull belongs. There is no class of men so sensitive to printed criticism, and so disposed
  1296
  to take an exaggerated view of the impression which it produces upon the public mind. But supposing it had even happened that Mr. Turnbull had resigned, simply from the annoyance of these unfounded accusations, I think the course which a just and generous superior would hare pursued would have been to represent to him that in the minds of all reflecting persons these charges would refute themselves by their own violence, and would not produce such an impression as would justify his resignation—would have urged him to reconsider his decision, and would have assured him that those who had appointed him would defend his fair fame and guard him against unfair attacks. But, if the statement of the noble Marquess be correct, that was not the course the Government pursued; more than that, Mr. Turnbull was not left in any doubt as to the course the Government were prepared to follow. Mr. Turnbull had an intimation conveyed to him, that if the attacks were continued the Government would not take upon themselves to vindicate the original appointment.
  THE MARQUESS OF NORMANBY:—The intimation was given to the Master of the Rolls.
  THE EARL OF DERBY:—Yes; and the Master of the Rolls doubtless communicated it to Mr. Turnbull. At least it would have been an act of the grossest injustice in the Master of the Rolls, when Mr. Turnbull consulted him upon the propriety of making his resignation or not, to withhold from MR. Turnbull the knowledge of the position in which the Government were prepared to leave him.
  EARL GRANVILLEwas understood to say that any intimation or suggestion which had been given by Lord Palmerston to the Master of the Rolls was conveyed in private letters, and was not of an official character. The Master of the Rolls, therefore, could not have communicated the intentions of the Government to Mr. Turnbull.
  THE EARL OF DERBY:—That, my Lords, really puts the case in this position—that we have asked for all the possible information that could be given on the matter, and have received the meagrest skeleton possible of the case. We are told there are private letters—and that reminds me that a memorial was presented to Lord Palmerston for the dismissal of Mr. Turnbull, accompanied with a statement in many respects erroneous. This memorial

  1297
  was sent round for signatures and marked "private and confidential." It was sent, too, as a private and confidential communication to the Prime Minister, requesting him to dismiss a man without giving him the power of seeing or answering the allegations which it contained. I say that the answer of the noble Earl that these things passed in private communications makes the strongest possible case for the appointment of a Committee, and for these reasons:—We will have the Secretary of the Protestant Alliance before us; we will have before us the complaining parties; we will have the Master of the Rolls before us, and the Master of the Rolls will tell us what is his opinion of Mr. Turn-bull, not when appointed to an office for which he was peculiarly qualified, but now, after a year and a half's experience of the manner in which Mr. Turnbull has discharged its duties. In justice to Mr. Turnbull, in justice to the Government, in justice to the Master of the Rolls, in justice to all who are concerned in the due subordination of persons in civil employment to those by whom they are appointed, and from whom they have a right to expect protection, I do earnestly hope your Lordships will not withhold your assent to an inquiry. The Committee would not have to inquire into Mr. Turnbull's religious opinions. His religious opinions, I say again, have nothing to do with the matter; nor is it a question whether the appointment in the first instance was judicious or not. Mr. Turnbull was appointed by my noble Friend Lord John Russell; and, although I have had many causes of difference with Lord John Russell, I have certainly never had to reproach him with any extraordinary partiality for persons, or for the principles of the Roman Catholic faith. My noble Friend has not even been a very strong supporter of the Church of England. The object of his peculiar attachment is a Protestant Dissenter, and next it is for the Low Church party in the Established Church; and I am perfectly certain that Lord John Russell would sooner have cut off his right hand than made an appointment with the knowledge of even a plausible ease for dissatisfaction or discontent by the Protestant Alliance and the other societies who have joined in this agitation. We are not called on, however, to inquire into that. We are called upon to inquire whether Mr. Turnbull has a fair claim to appeal to us, not for a restoration to his office, because that
  1298
  would be, I will not say impossible after what has occurred, but impolitic—I regret the loss of the services of Mr. Turnbull, knowing the testimony to the mariner in which he has discharged his duties which is borne even by his opponents—and the loss of his services is, I fear, unavoidable—but we are called upon to inquire into the facts. We are called upon to do justice between the parties; and, above all, we are called upon by our vote to declare that persons placed in office shall not have their character or reputation whispered away, but are and shall be entitled to the protection of those by whom they are appointed, and if that protection is withheld, that the protection of Parliament shall not be withheld from them.
  THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, I beg leave to add very little to this debate. Indeed, I am incapable of doing more, and no one is better aware than I am of my inability to take an active part in your Lordships' proceedings. Nevertheless, I do think the circumstances of this appointment are such as to deserve particular notice for the purpose of removing all misrepresentations of which there have been so many on this subject. I hold it to be most essential that the conduct of the Government, the conduct of the Master of the Rolls, and the conduct of the Rolls Office, should be distinctly and clearly understood. My Lords, I say that there has been great misrepresentation, and that the subject, partly from its being of a religious character, and partly from the long controversy to which it has given rise is one which particularly requires explanation. I say this because, failing, as the adversaries of Mr. Turnbull have done, to discover anything upon which they could found a charge, they have certainly—I hope unintentionally, and I hope unadvisedly—circulated statements which are false. I find it asserted in some of the papers circulated by those societies that Mr. Turnbull retires now from the task confided to him of writing the "History of the Reigns of Queen Mary and Edward VI." On behalf, if necessary, of Her Majesty's Government, I take this opportunity of stating to the public at large that nothing can be so entirely erroneous as the allegation that Mr. Turnbull has received that charge. He has not received it from Her Majesty's Government. He has not received it from the Master of the Rolls. Nay! he has not charged himself with receiving it. He has never under-

  1299
  stood that he was called upon to write such a history. But he was charged, and I believe wisely, as far as his accuracy, his knowledge, and his peculiar attainments were concerned, with making a calendar of State papers. I differ from my noble Friend who spoke early in the debate (the Earl of Shaftesbury) as to the interpretation of the word "calendar." It is a technical word, and is perfectly understood to mean a catalogue pointing out dates and circumstances and affording most valuable materials for the historian, though not the work of an historian, as such. The noble Earl who spoke last presented the case to your Lordships as raising the question whether a public duty has been performed satisfactorily or not. I state on the authority of others more competent to judge than myself—and no man is more able or more interested in judging than the Master of the Rolls—that it has been satisfactorily performed. I have myself looked into a portion only of Mr. Turnbull's work; but I believe it is impossible to examine it, however cursorily, without being struck with the extreme care and nicety with which it is executed. I find that those who desired to remove Mr. Turnbull from office having no other charge to bring forward, alleged as a demerit that he had written a book. It puts me in mind of the controversy between the late Dean of Christ Church and Dr. Parr, in which the latter exclaimed, "Oh! that before I die I could catch him writing a book—I should then know how to deal with him." Mr. Turnbull, unfortunate in that respect, has not only written a book, but he has written two books, which, still more unfortunately for him, contradict themselves—one praising and the other denouncing the Pope. Nothing can be more reprehensible, perhaps, than the tone in which Mr. Turn-bull's opinions are conveyed. But is the publication of a book a reason for saying to Mr. Turnbull, after he has performed his duty well that he is not worthy of his office? Supposing the noble Duke at the head of the Admiralty appointed an admiral to command a station abroad, and the admiral on several occasions displayed great skill and courage, what would be thought of my noble Friend if, when the admiral came home, he said, "While you have been fighting we have discovered that you once asserted opinions against fighting at all?" Would not the natural answer to that person be, "See how I have executed my command. Ask the persons who have
  1300
  watched me, and who have acted with me, whether I have ever betrayed any symptom whatever of any impropriety of sentiment which unfitted me for the command which I have triumphantly (and Mr. Turnbull has a right to say "triumphantly") performed?" It is, therefore, a case of considerable hardship on Mr. Turnbull. The noble Marquess has alluded to some communication—which until I know it exists I cannot believe—between Lord Palmerston and the Master of the Rolls to the effect that Lord Palmerston would not defend the appointment of Mr. Turnbull if it were attacked. I cannot suppose that my noble Friend Lord Palmerston has been guilty of anything like illiberality. I am certain he has no objection to the appointment of a Roman Catholic to any office for which he is fitted; but rather he would be glad to see such a man appointed to such an office. But it has been industriously circulated in this country, and still more in Ireland, that this case is a proof that there is a disposition on the part of the Government not to do full justice to the Catholics by admitting them to all the situations to which they are entitled under the law. It is most essential that this conduct should be disclaimed thoroughly. Lord Falmerston, I am sure, had no regard to Mr. Turnbull's religious opinions when he accepted the resignation which that gentleman has, most unfortunately, given in. If there is any error in Mr. Turnbull's conduct it is not in anything that he has written, or in anything he has done since his appointment—it is the one act of his resigning the public duty with which he was intrusted, and which he was conscious of performing in such a way as to deserve the public approbation. I do not myself see any advantage from the appointment of a Committee, nor from calling for more papers. The papers already on the table fully explain the matter; and if you carry the inquiry further you will go on, step by step, until you find yourselves engaged in a verification of all the documents on which Mr. Turnbull has been engaged. The Committee will find themselves sitting at the Rolls during all the spring and bummer; and I, for one, shall beg my noble Friend to excuse me being a member of it. It is essential, both to the character of Mr. Turnbull and the Master of the Rolls, that it should be understood that not only was the Master of the Rolls perfectly satisfied with Mr. Turnbull's perfect fitness when he appointed him and with

  1301
  the manner in which he has discharged his duties, but also that, from the moment he heard of the objections made to Mr. Turnbull's appointment, he has given every facility in the office to any adversary of Mr. Turnbull's who might wish to come there to investigate paper by paper to endeavour to discover where he had attempted to mislead the public. It appears to me to have been singularly disingenuous of this society to have excluded from the collection of letters which they have circulated that letter of Mr. Hardy, the head of the department, a gentleman of the highest character, in which he stated that no document could be abstracted from the office, nor even altered, so effectual were the precautions taken in the office. It is very hard on a gentleman who is charged with the possibility of withholding or suppressing documents committed to his charge that such a justification should have been omitted. That letter, I must say, had the greatest weight with me. There was also in some publication which I have seen a most unfair insinuation both against Mr. Turnbull and Sir John Romilly. It was stated that Sir John Romilly had directed that the papers should be regularly inspected when they were handed over to Mr. Turnbull, and also when they were taken away from him—a statement which was made for the purpose of insinuating that Sir John Romilly had that opinion of Mr. Turnbull that he had him particularly watched. He was watched, but it was in the same way and on the same principle that every other individual having access to the Office for the purpose of transcribing was watched—by the just precautions of the Office. I have no hesitation in saying that that was a most unfair insinuation. I have no personal interest in Mr. Turnbull's character. I am unacquainted with him, and as far as I know of his religious opinions, I am most distinctly and warmly opposed to them. I have no wish to protect the religion to which he belongs beyond the protection to which it is entitled by law; but I conceive that Mr. Turnbull has forfeited by no act of his own that protection to which he is entitled. His fault lies in having given in his resignation. It is not for me to say on what grounds my noble Friend accepted that resignation; but he had as perfect a right to accept it as Mr. Turnbull had to insist upon holding his office. The Master of the Rolls, I must say, appears to me to have done his duty to the public and every person concerned
  1302
  throughout this transaction, with the same zeal, fidelity, and honour which have always distinguished him through life. I am anxious that the public should not labour under the misconception that the Government has intrusted the duty of writing the history of England to any individual. It is understood in the Office that this was to be a calendar. It is a calendar only—it is open to your Lordships to inspect the volume—and those who do inspect it cannot but be struck, as I was, with the extreme nicety and accuracy displayed in it, and, I trust, it will have the approbation of the public.
  EARL GREY: My Lords, there is one point on which, I trust, we shall have a distinct answer from the Government. Did Lord Palmerston or did he not write to the Master of the Rolls to say that in the event, of Mr. Turnbull's appointment being questioned in Parliament it would not be defended by the Government? That is a point on which we ought to have some information; for I agree with the noble Earl below (the Earl of Derby) that the only question this House can consider is did the Government or did they not give that support to a public servant who was attacked, and who was properly discharging his duties which he had a right to expect? That is a question of far deeper importance than any which attaches to this particular case. I hold that in our system of Government much depends on maintaining all the public servants who are below the rank of Parliamentary office in the situations they have hitherto held, as men who, while they discharge their duties fairly to the country, may count on the support of the chiefs under whom they serve. They should not hold their offices liable to be displaced by every public clamour, but their tenure should be practically, if not theoretically, on good behaviour. But that vital principle will receive an effectual blow if it is to be admitted that when a public clamour is raised against any public servant the Government are to be at liberty to let him fall a victim; that he not being in Parliament to defend himself is to be dropped by the Government whom he serves; and that they are not to take upon themselves the responsibility of dismissing him as they ought to do if he does not discharge his duty efficiently; but that his office is to be made untenable by their declining to defend him where they only can defend him. If that principle is once admitted you give a shock to the whole

  1303
  system of our civil service; and it is with that view that I consider this question of importance. I shall, therefore, be reluctantly compelled to vote for the Committee, unless some member of the Government will tell me distinctly that Lord Palmers-ton did not write to the Master of the Rolls to say that if this appointment were questioned he would not be inclined to give it his support. If Mr. Turnbull, having resigned, had been merely told, "You have chosen your part, and must go," that would have been a different matter; but the whole circumstances of the case are altered when moral pressure is brought to bear upon Mr. Turnbull to extort his resignation. An intimation that Mr. Turnbull would not receive the support of the Prime Minister if the question came before Parliament involved, no doubt, a moral pressure deserving of severe condemnation; and, unless a denial is given to this statement I shall feel myself compelled, however reluctantly, to vote for the appointment of the Committee.
  THE MARQUESS OF NORMANBY, in reply, said he had had no personal communication with the Master of the Rolls since the Government decided on accepting Mr. Turnbull's resignation. The Master of the Rolls felt the delicacy of his position as a Government officer, and intimated, as he (the Marquess of Normanby) felt that it would be better that any information upon the facts of the case should come from some other quarter. But if a Committee were appointed Sir John Romilly would cease to feel any delicacy as to his official position, and would, as he had every reason to believe, give full particulars of the communications received from Lord Palmerston; his Lordship, in substance, stating that if Mr. Turnbull's appointment were discussed in Parliament he would not take upon himself to defend it, but must leave the responsibility of that appointment entirely with the Master of the Rolls. Now, he (the Marquess of Normanby) thought he had good reason to complain that the noble Earl opposite (Earl Granville) had again thought proper to speak of what he was pleased to call his personal hostility to Lord Palmerston. The noble Earl must know that his public conduct had not been in the least influenced by any such sentiment. His (the Marquess of Normanby's) eternal political separation from Lord Palmerston dated from the month of December, 1851, in consequence of their wide divergence of opinions respecting the
  1304
  coup d' état, and his opinions expressed in despatches written home at the time formed one of the principal grounds upon which Lord John Russell dismissed Lord Palmerston from his Cabinet. There was no public man who had less right to forget this circumstance than the noble Earl opposite since he must then have shared the same views, since he had been the person to succeed to the office from which the noble Viscount had been dismissed. For ten years he had had no communication with the noble Lord, and had, therefore, told the gentlemen who signed the memorial that he had rather not head the deputation, provided their request was likely to be complied with; but, as soon as it was ascertained that such would not be the case, he could not refuse to assist in urging the matter on the noble Viscount, and failing in producing any effect upon that occasion, he at once determined to bring the matter before Parliament, and press upon their Lordships an inquiry into the case.
  THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGH:—If the Government are not prepared to answer the question put to them—if they fail to state that Lord Palmerston did not communicate with Sir John Romilly, declaring that if Mr. Turnbull's appointment were questioned in Parliament he could not give it the support of the Government—I shall feel compelled most reluctantly to vote for the Committee, as a censure upon the Government, thinking that some censure is deserved, and that Mr. Turnbull did not receive the protection to which public servants are entitled. It is impossible, however, to conceal the extreme inconvenience of the precedent which will he set by the appointment of a Committee before which a Prime Minister of the Crown and a Judge are to be brought to state the private and confidential communications which passed between them with respect to the appointment of a public servant.
  LORD HERBERT:—I did not rise before to answer to the question which has been put to the Government, because your Lordships will see that it is obviously very difficult to give a positive negative to that of which we have no knowledge. I had not heard until to-night of the statement that Lord Palmerston declared to the Master of the Rolls that if the question of Mr. Turnbull's appointment came before Parliament he could not defend it. It is impossible for me or for anybody to say whether such a charge is true or false.

  1305
  But we may judge of its truth by probabilities. Is Lord Palmerston a man likely to desert a public servant unnecessarily or from mere fear? Are the antecedents of Lord Palmerston such as justify us in supposing that he, of all men in the world, is one to neglect the rights and interests of a public servant? I ask whether there has ever been a public man who has pushed this principle to such an extreme, who has gone to the verge of hardihood, and has risked so much as Lord Palmerston has risked for the purpose of defending men whom he thought were doing their best, simply because at that moment there happened to be a popular outcry against them? While neither I nor my Colleagues can give a positive denial to the statement now made, the considerations which I have mentioned must have great weight with all those who know the public character of the noble Viscount.
  On Question their Lordships' divided:—
  Contents 26; Not-Contents 41: Majority 15.
  Resolved in the Negative.

  CONTENTS.

  Bath M. [Teller.]

  Clifton, L. (E. Darnley.)

  Normanby, M.

  Salisbury, M.

  Colchester, L.

  Winchester, M.

  Colville of Culross, L.

  Denman, L.

  Derby, E.

  Feversham, L.

  Ellenborough, E.

  Monteagle of Brandon, L.

  Grey, E.

  Hardwicke, E.

  Penshurst, L. (V. Strangford.)

  Lucan, E.

  Powis, E.

  Petre, L.

  Selkirk, E.

  Ravensworth, L. [Teller.]

  Stanhope, E.

  Rollo, L.

  Dungannon, V.

  Somerhill, L. (M. Clanricarde.)

  Chelmsford, L.

  Wynford, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Campbell, L. (L. Chancellor.)

  Sydney, V.

  Torrington, V.

  Newcastle, D.

  Carlisle, Bp.

  Somerset, D.

  London, Bp.

  Ailesbury, M.

  Boyle, L. (E. Cork and Orrery.)

  Camperdown, E.

  Brodrick, L. (V. Midleton.)

  De Grey, E.

  Ducie, E.

  Calthorpe, L.

  Granville, E.

  Camoys, L. [Teller.]

  Saint Germans, E.

  Dartrey, L. (L. Cremorne.)

  Shaftesbury, E.

  Sommers, E.

  De Mauley, L.

  Spencer, E.

  De Tabley, L.

  Ebury, L.

  Eversley, V.

  Foley, L. [Teller.]

  1306

  Harris, L,

  Ponsonby, L. (E. Bessborough.)

  Herbert, L.

  Hunsdon, L. (V. Folkland.)

  Rossie, L. (L. Kinnaird.)

  Keane, L.

  Stanley of Alderley, L.

  Lismore, L. (V. Lismore.)

  Stratheden, L.

  Taunton, L.

  Llanover, L.

  Truro, L.

  Methuen, L.

  Wodehouse, L.

  Mont Eagle, L. (M. Sligo.)

  House adjourned at a quarter-past Eight o'clock, till To-morrow, Half-past Ten o'clock.