that this was now the only country of Europe in which
the free expression of opinion was allowed. In such
circumstances it behoved us to recollect what was due to
our character, and to reflect on the injury which would
be done both to the interests of liberty throughout the
world and to our own national reputation, if it were to be
permanently injured. Lord John Russell then
proceeded to make remarks on the present state of public
business. After the accession of the present ministry to
office, the house and the country had been led to expect
that the session would be a short one, and that a new
parliament would meet early in the autumn, before
which the measures of the government would be laid,
and that in the meantime their policy would be frankly
declared. Instead of this, however, the present government,
from the first moment of their accession, had
been studious to conceal their policy, departing in this
respect from the examples of all their predecessors, and
particularly Earl Grey and Sir R. Peel. Every one
had expected to hear whether ministers were resolved to
maintain or reverse the free commercial policy of Sir R.
Peel and of the late government; but to this question
the house and the country had yet had no answer. The
Chancellor of the Exchequer's declarations in parliament
were at variance with the Mansion-house speech
of the Premier, which, by its obscure and contradictory
language, involved the intentions of the government in
mystery and confusion. In short, the different members
of the cabinet were all at variance in their declarations
on the subject. The government candidates at Greenwich
and elsewhere marched with a big loaf before
them; and the Chancellor of the Exchequer's address
to his constituents proclaimed that the time for corn-laws
was gone by, and that statesmen must be guided
by the spirit of the age. In one point, however, it was
not reassuring. The right hon. gentleman announced,
as the result of his inquiries, that the rent of land had
fallen off £5,000,000 a-year—a sum equal to the falling
off in property rated to the income-tax. But if this were
to be made a pretext for the re-imposition of protective
duties, nothing could be more preposterous. The corn-laws
never had been defended on the ground of their adding
to the income of the landowners, but as a national
advantage. They were told also that there was to be a
revision of taxation, but he feared that this would give
no great satisfaction to farmers, who had been told for a
succession of years that protection was sure to be
restored as soon as a Whig government was overthrown.
The effect of the commercial policy pursued since 1842
was greatly to lighten the burdens of the community,
without danger to the exchequer; and he hoped that
those who had been once deceived would not be deceived
again into expecting that they could obtain protection
from any source but that of their own industry and
exertions. With regard to the measures brought
forward by ministers, they were all, with the single
exception of the militia, to the full credit of which they were
entitled, founded on the acts of the late government.
The commission for inquiry into the Court of Chancery
was a measure of the late government. Upon some
subjects, as that of Irish education, government had
made very dangerous admissions. If concessions were
made to Protestants, they must be made to Catholics
also; if there was to be a separate education for children
of the two religions, what became of the system of mixed
education and its benefits? Let them reflect on the
danger of disturbing a question that had been regarded
as settled by general consent. The agitation of questions
touching education and religion must produce the
greatest excitement; we were even told that there was a
party which demanded the alteration of the charter of
the National Society. In forming the present government,
it seemed as if those who were to be its members
had entirely forgotten to determine what should be its
principles, or to lay down any fixed line of action.
Thus, on the Maynooth question, the management
clauses, the Irish education system, nothing like a clear
or consistent line of action was discernible. Talk of
agitation—here was a premium distinctly set on agitation
by the government itself. Although, however, we had
no clear declaration of policy, we knew enough to
warrant the right hon. member for Ripon (Sir J.
Graham) in saying that the clear question for the
electors was, whether they would confide in Lord
Derby's government or not—whether they would
place their trust in a ministry that was without
fixed principles or opinions of any kind?—Lord
STANLEY defended the conduct of Lord Malmesbury
in the case of Mr. Mather. It was impossible, he
said, to read the evidence taken before the Tuscan court
of justice, which was now in the hands of members,
without coming to the conclusion that a right and
proper course had been followed. Had the British
government admitted the excuses put forward by the
Tuscan government, of the Austrian army being beyond
their control, and applied for redress to the Austrian
government, as the noble lord said he would have done,
the consequence would have been to recognise the absolute
military occupation of Tuscany by the Austrian
troops, which the present government had never done.
In such case, an inquiry by a court-martial would have
been the only one practicable according to the Austrian
laws. Had a similar outrage been perpetrated in
England on a subject of Austria, and had the case gone to
trial and been decided by a jury, it would have been
impossible for the British government to take any other
course than that which had been taken by the Austrian
government—of expressing its regret at the occurrence
to Mr. Mather. There was nothing to call for
reprehension in the conduct and demands of Mr. Mather,
who evidently took the national view of the question,
supposing the act of the Austrian officer to be a gross
insult and outrage, and wishing that a commensurate
fine should be imposed; though, if no intentional insult
from one government to another were in question, and
it were merely an individual misfortune, then the sum
named for compensation became disproportioned and
extravagant. With regard to the disavowal of Mr.
Scarlett, it was not for having consented to take a sum
of £250 instead of one of £500, or for having agreed to
an irregular release of two political prisoners, but for
having surrendered that most important principle on
which the whole negotiation depended.—Mr. B.
OSBOURNE observed, that by the convention concluded
between Austria and Tuscany in 1849, the Austrian
troops were not to be subject in any respect to the
tribunals or authorities of Tuscany. He regarded the
head and front of the Foreign Secretary's offending to
have been that he did not at once call Austria to
account, for he thought that our national character and
standing had been lowered by this petty huxtering with
the Tuscan government. In the true spirit of a pedlar,
Lord Malmesbury at once asked Mr. Mather, "How
much will you take for your injury?" When Mr.
Mather named a sum, at Lord Malmesbury's own
request, the noble lord never hinted to him that he
thought it too high; but behind Mr. Mather's back,
and without saying a word to him, he wrote a despatch
to Mr. Scarlett at Florence, characterising the demand
of £5000 as extravagant. At last he came down to £500,
acting probably on the celebrated doctrine of compromise
laid down in the Premier's speech at the Mansion-house.
What security had British subjects travelling
abroad for their lives, honour, or property, when Lord
Malmesbury used such language in his despatches? He
should ever regret that the noble lord the member for
Tiverton had left what was his natural position at the
head of our foreign affairs; had he still continued in
office, we should have had none of these disgraceful
discussions with the Tuscan government as to the price
of insult. There had been no expression of contrition
on the part of the Austrians; Lieutenant Forsthüber
was going about as the hero of the hour, and the health
of Lord Malmesbury and Lieutenant Forsthüber were
now being toasted at the Austrian messes. The noble
lord was bound, for the credit of his ministry, if not of
the country, to have taken a higher tone on the subject,
and insisted on an effective inquiry into the facts being
made. Mr. Scarlett might be an amiable man, but
he was on far too intimate terms with the Austrian
commanders. The infirmity of purpose manifested
throughout Lord Malmesbury's despatches was such
as had never been surpassed in any other state.—
The Marquess of GRANBY entered into a number of
statistical details to show the injurious nature of the
free-trade commercial policy, which, he contended,