humanity and philanthropy was to be all on one side.
At this moment acts of persecution were going on
against Roman catholics in protestant countries quite
as deserving of our interference as the case of the
Madiais, and he should bring some of them before the
house. The system of law in Sweden was quite as
persecuting as that of Tuscany, and in Mecklenburgh
catholic priests had been conducted by the police across
the frontier for the crime of saying mass in private.
—Lord J. RUSSELL professed himself at a loss to know
whether Mr, Lucas approved or not of persecution for
religious opinions. His (Lord John's) conclusion was,
that if a protestant state should condemn persons
because they had become Roman catholics, or taught
others to become so, such conduct was morally wrong.
Mr. Lucas alleged that the Madiais were punished, not
because they had become protestants, but that, being
protestants, they endeavoured to convert others to
protestantism at the instigation of a foreign agent;
whereas the foreign agent had left the country, and the
Madiais had followed their own convictions. But, be
it as the Tuscan tribunals said, that those individuals
had endeavoured to induce Roman catholics to read the
Bible, and to believe that certain doctrines were not
authorised by the Bible, he still said it was a moral
crime to punish them. Mr. Lucas had said we were not
justified in considering ourselves friends of religious
liberty while we were indifferent to persecutions against
Roman catholics. But it could not be maintained that
such was our general conduct; in no part of our
dominions were persons punished for endeavouring to induce
protestants to become Roman catholics. Having
vindicated Lord Palmerston from the charge of
countenancing religious persecution in Switzerland, the
South Seas, and Sweden, he insisted that the government
of this country had done nothing which misbecame
it in the representations it had addressed to that of
Tuscany. Persecution for religions opinions was odious
and detestable, and the government of England was
justified in raising its voice against it. Holding this
opinion, he recommended the house to leave this case
in the hands of the government. Its voice had been
heard, and he trusted that, although the Madiais and
others might suffer, the general opinion of the world
would secure religious liberty.—Mr. DRUMMOND
observed that religious persecution, even by the Inquisition,
was always justified by the plea that the offence was
against civil society. Before the Roman catholics were
condemned, however, he recommended that we should
look to our own conduct.—Mr. J. FITZGERALD regretted
that the Roman catholic clergy had been dragged into
this discussion. So far from the law applied to the
Madiais being that of the church, it was a law which
had destroyed the power of the ecclesiastical tribunals.
As a Roman catholic, he disapproved of the punishment
of these persons, and he should ever raise his voice
against persecutions of every kind.—Lord PALMERSTON
repelled the imputations cast upon him by Mr. Lucas,
in respect to the expulsion of the Jesuits from Switzerland,
and to the transactions at Tahiti. He complained
that that hon. member had made a partial representation
of the facts in the former case; and in the latter, the
noble lord justified the treatment of the Roman catholic
priests, who went, he said, to disturb the tranquillity of
an island already pacified, for the purpose of turning
protestants into catholics, instead of endeavouring to
turn heathens into christians. Those priests had,
however, not been put into "comfortable prisons," like
the Madiais, but had been merely told to go about their
business,—Mr. KINNAIRD withdrew his motion.

On Friday, February 18, Mr. DISRAELI, agreeably
to notice, called the attention of the house to the
subject of our Relations with France. This, he
observed, was the most important subject of our
modern politics. Peace had now subsisted for nearly
forty years between Great Britain and France; during
this interval the social relations between the two
countries had multiplied, and with enlightened legislation,
their commercial intercourse was susceptible of infinite
development. Having every security for the peace we
desired, it was extremely strange, and even startling, he
said, that we should be supposed to be on the eve of a
rupture with France. The dogma that there was a
natural hostility between the two nations, was repugnant
to the opinions of the wisest of our statesmen, who had
held that an alliance with France should be the keystone
of our foreign policy. The increase of our armaments
was erroneously connected with certain incidents which
had occurred in France; its origin was of a date much
more remote; it was to be found chiefly in the changes
wrought in science, in the revolution in the art of war,
which had deprived us of one of our natural sources of
defence. Mr. Disraeli then referred to the plans of the
late government, which would, he said, furnish a
Channel fleet of fifteen or sixteen sail of the line, with
an adequate number of smaller vessels. But there was
no foundation for the too prevalent belief that this
increase of our naval means of defence was occasioned by
any political changes in a foreign country. Whoever
might sit upon the throne of France, and however
tranquil might be the condition of Europe, those who were
responsible for the conduct of affairs in this country
would, sooner or later, have felt it their duty to place it
in a state of defence. Other causes of apprehension had
been alleged; the troubled state of France, it was said,
had terminated in a revival of a military dynasty; but
it did not follow that the descendant of a conqueror
should be a rival, and the present sovereign of France,
was not by profession a military man. Then France
was supposed to be governed by the army; but it was a
great error to assume that the army was anxious to
conquer another country. There was no doubt a considerable
prejudice in this country against the present ruler
of France, but it was extremely difficult to form an
opinion upon French politics, and so long as the French
people were exact in their commercial dealings, and
friendly in their political relations, it was just as well
that we should not interfere in the management of their
domestic concerns. Mr. Disraeli read an extract from
the speech of Lord John Russell, on the 3rd of February,
1852, upon the subject of the then recent changes in the
government of France, and, expressing his concurrence
in the soundness of its sentiments, desired, he said, to
ascertain whether they were at all modified, and whether
similar opinions were entertained by the noble lord's
present colleagues. He instanced various proofs of the
cordial co-operation of France with this country in objects
of general benefit, remarking that a nation which had thus
entitled itself to the sympathy, respect, and good-feeling
of the people of this country was not to be treated as a
corsair and a bandit. In seeking to discover the views
and opinions of the government of Lord Aberdeen, he
referred to the declarations of some of its members. Sir
James Graham, he observed, had described the ruler
of France as a despot who had trampled upon the rights
and liberties of forty millions of men, thus holding up to
public scorn and indignation both ruler and people.
Another cabinet minister, Sir Charles Wood, had
accused the Emperor of the French of gagging the French
and Belgian press, though, "of course," without meaning
the slightest offence to the emperor. Upon these
indiscretions, as he termed them, Mr. Disraeli commented;
observing that they suggested grave doubts as to the
foreign policy of the present cabinet, which were not
removed by the programme of Lord Aberdeen, and, in
these circumstances, it was the absolute duty of the
house to obtain something more satisfactory, a frank
explanation from the government upon this important
question; he was, therefore, entitled to ask what was
the system on which our foreign policy was to be
conducted, and what was the state of our relations with
France.—Lord JOHN RUSSELL said, If Mr. Disraeli's
object had been to obtain an explanation respecting our
foreign relations, he might have confined his observations
within much narrower limits. Indeed, the statement
he (Lord John) made the other night, that we were on
terms of intimate friendship with France, might itself
have satisfied a member of that house, and he thought
it a calamity if an attempt were made to convert this
into a party question, and to throw suspicions on the
intentions of the government, and sow dissension between
two powerful countries. He now reported, that the
British government was on terms of amity with that of
France, with the domestic concerns of which we had no
right to interfere. Mr. Disraeli, he remarked, had
referred to certain speeches delivered on the hustings.