GROSVENOR seconded the motion.—Mr. WALPOLE
doubted whether the object would really tend to secure
the object in view, and whether more information would
be gained by a standing commission than by the
committees of both houses of parliament. Besides, he did
not think it judicious to lead the people to depend rather
on the government and parliament than on their own
exertions. He hoped the hon. member would not press
the matter to a division. The motion was ultimately
withdrawn, and the house went into committee of
supply.—On the vote for Repairing the Chapel of the
British Embassy at Constantinople, the CHANCELLOR
of the EXCHEQUER said that the government had
taken the matter into consideration since Thursday, and
the enormous expenditure on the ambassadorial
residence seemed most indefensible. To spend £85,000 in
ten years was too much, and without wishing to lay any
blame to their predecessors, the government wished to
express their dissatisfaction on this head, and therefore
should not propose to proceed further now with the
vote.

At the evening sitting, the house went into
committee on the Improvement of the Jurisdiction of Equity
Bill. After four hours' discussion the whole of the
clauses were agreed to without a division.—The Masters
in Chancery Abolition Bill was then considered in
committee. After a long discussion, the first five clauses
were agreed to without a division. Upon the 6th
clause, Mr. S. Carter moved, by way of amendment,
that the compensation to the masters whose office would
be abolished, should be limited to two-thirds, instead of
the whole of their salaries. Mr. Anstey supported the
amendment, which was opposed by Sir J. Graham and
Sir W. Page Wood, and on division the amendment
was negatived by 90 to 10. The remaining clauses were
agreed to.

On Monday, June 14, Lord J. RUSSELL called the
attention of the house to the Case of Mr. Mather, and
generally to the Present State of Public Affairs. He
began by referring to the circumstances of Mr. Mather's
case. At the close of the last year that gentleman was
subjected to gross maltreatment and outrage in the
streets of Florence by an Austrian officer, who inflicted
very serious injury on him. Lord Granville, then
Secretary for Foreign Affairs, lost no time in instructing
the British minister at the Tuscan court to demand
reparation. The Austrian version differed materially
from Mr. Mather's; it stated that Mr. Mather had
several warnings, which he did not mind; that he was
standing in the path, and impeding an officer; that,
when struck on the face, he immediately put himself in
a defensive or boxing attitude, as Marshal Radetzky
styled it, and was in the act of resistance when struck
down. By Mr. Mather's account of the circumstances,
the outrage was a wanton and unprovoked one, inflicted
on an unresisting man, who staggered under the blow,
and could scarcely recover himself. He (Lord John
Russell) had looked to see which was the view taken by
Lord Malmesbury. A natural course would have been
for him to propose that both parties should be
confronted with one another; but no such course was
taken. Lord Malmesbury had in fact adopted both
views of the circumstances—on the one hand that it
was a wanton and unprovoked outrage (as at page 60 of
the papers), and again, in writing to the Earl of
Westmoreland, that it was a mere accident caused by a
concourse of unlooked-for and fortuitous circumstances.
Count Buhl accordingly proposed to give compensation,
not for an insult, but for an unfortunate accident.
Having noticed various passages of singular verbal
blundering in the official papers, the noble lord
remarked that it was quite natural that Lord Malmesbury,
being thus in doubt as to the real character of the
transaction, should have been very inconsistent in
the amount of his demands for compensation. Lord
Granville had laid down the principle that the Tuscan
government was responsible in the first instance,
intimating that application should also be made to the
Austrian government—a course which he (Lord J.
Russell) regarded as the proper one. The account of
the circumstances given by Messrs. Mather, as well as
the language they had held throughout their efforts to
obtain redress, was unexceptionable and becoming in
every point of view. It was perfectly clear that the
elder Mr. Mather had only sought pecuniary compensation
at all out of deference to the express request made
to him by Lord Malmesbury; he at length mentioned
a sum of £5000. Whether that sum was a right sum or
not, it was evidently not for Mr. Mather to fix the
compensation that should be given for the violation of
international law. It was evidently Lord Malmesbury's
business to fix the sum; but, having asked Mr. Mather
to do so, Lord Malmesbury should have consulted the
Queen's Advocate on the point. This was the course
pursued in the case of a South American merchant by
a former Foreign Secretary (Lord Palmerston), who
understood the business of his department. If Lord
Malmesbury thought £5000 too much, and that £1000
would have been sufficient, no doubt Mr. Mather would
have been quite satisfied to have left the matter in his
hands. Instead of doing so, he wrote a general direction
to Mr. Scarlett, at Florence, to obtain a sum of
money, stating his opinion at the same time that the
amount named by Mr. Mather was exorbitant. The
consequence of this unjust and foolish proceeding was
a despatch from the Tuscan government, asserting that
this was little else than a proceeding to extort money.
This was the way in which the Foreign Secretary
obtained redress for a man who had been most unjustly
treated; no pains were taken to correct the blunder
thus made, and the representation as to Mr. Mather
was allowed to remain. There had been neither
inquiry into the facts nor moral reparation. If Lord
Malmesbury determined on asking pecuniary compensation,
he should at least have adhered firmly to the
sum demanded, and obtained one proportionate to the
outrages and injuries inflicted. Instead of this, we find
such absurd directions to the ambassador as that he
must, if possible, get £500 for Mr. Mather, or such a
sum as would buy him an annuity, as if the two things
were equivalent. Mr. Scarlett was never told what it
was precisely he was to ask, and the latitude and
discretion were thus left to him. Being in great anxiety,
he made a most unbecoming agreement to take £250,
provided the Messrs. Stratford were released from
prison. It was a great palliation of his conduct that
he had never received precise instructions, nor been
told what sum to ask for. But when all was done,
Lord Malmesbury turned round on Mr. Scarlett, and
accused him of taking a course as much at variance
with his instructions as with sound reason and equity.
The result was a very disagreeable one for this country;
the only persons who were to suffer were Mr. Mather
and the agent who was entrusted with the conduct
of the business. Let him not be told that Mr. Scarlett
was unfit or unable to carry out instructions; had
he been told what steps to take, what reparation to
ask for, no doubt he would have obtained it. It was
remarkable that during all this time the Austrian
government maintained the most conciliatory demeanour,
and the wish to preserve the most friendly
relations. If the Tuscan government professed that
the Austrian army was beyond their reach, then we
should have insisted on reparation from the Austrian
government. But the fact was, that though neither
the Austrian or the Tuscan government seemed
inclined to deny a demand for justice, the mode in
which Lord Malmesbury had managed the business was
such as could call down upon us nothing but the
ridicule and contempt of these foreign governments.
The last despatch was to Sir Henry Bulwer, ordering
him to leave Florence and break off all relations with
the Tuscan government unless an offer of adequate
reparation was made. Even if this were done, he did
not think the character of the transaction would be
at all improved; the only consequence would be
that British travellers and subjects would be deprived
of an able protector. He had heard lately of a case
in which a respectable British subject had been thrown
into prison at Berlin, and was now engaged in preferring
requests for redress. The best advice he could offer
to that gentleman was, not to ask the present
government to interfere at all in the transaction. If this
were to be the conduct adopted in dealing with foreign
governments, our national character must sink into the
depths of degradation. Let the government recollect