§ LORD DUDLEY STUARTwished to put a question to the right hon. Chancellor of the Exchequer, respecting some outrages alleged to have been committed on British subjects in Tuscany, and particularly on a non-commissioned officer, named Baggs, belonging to one of Her Majesty's ships at Leghorn. Mr. Baggs was a corporal of Marine Artillery, belonging to Her Majesty's ship Firebrand, commanded by Captain Codd. The statement of his case, as represented to him (Lord D. Stuart) was to the following effect: It appeared that this non-commissioned officer having landed on leave at Leghorn, found that while walking about the town, his steps were tracked by twp officers of police. He remonstrated with them for thus dogging him, but his expostulations, being expressed in the English 893 language, were not attended to, and produced no effect. An altercation ensued. A Maltese gentleman, who happened to be passing by, volunteered to act as interpreter between the police and this English subject, who were the Queen's uniform, and was conducting himself in a peaceful and inoffensive manner. But notwithstanding all the remonstrances which were conveyed through the interpreter, the Tuscan police officers expressed their intention to continue their pursuit of Corporal Baggs. Corporal Baggs then offered to go with them to the nearest police station, and thither they accordingly proceeded. Arrived at the station, the police produced a chain, and were proceeding to put it on Corporal Baggs, when the latter, who was a very powerful man, resisted them with such effect, that he almost succeeded in putting his persecutors to flight. They, however, procured a reinforcement, and thus overpowered him. They laid him on his back upon a table, bound him with irons, and detained him there the whole of the night. On the following morning he was paraded in the broad day-light, and still habited in full uniform, through the streets to another prison, from which he was liberated only through the interference of an armed party of men, who had been sent in search of him from the ship, by order of Captain Codd. Captain Codd felt it to be his duty to communicate the particulars of this extraordinary occurrence to Mr. Scarlett, Secretary of Legation, at Florence; and Mr. Scarlett lost no time in demanding redress from the Tuscan Government. Questions having reference to this affair had been asked previous to the recess in both Houses of Parliament; and the answers returned to those interrogatories were to the effect that the whole subject had been brought under the notice of the Government; that the matter had been satisfactorily arranged; that reparation had been demanded, and granted by the Tuscan Government; and that the superintendent of police had been sentenced to imprisonment for eight days. This was the substance of the answers given on behalf of the Government; but the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer seemed not to be then in full possession of all requisite information on the subject. He (Lord D. Stuart) wished to ask whether since then they had received any additional information, and if so, whether there would be any objection to lay it on the table of 894 the House. He also desired to know if the Government were now in a position to state whether the reparation that had been offered on the part of the Tuscan Government was adequate to the aggravated character of so unprovoked an outrage on an unoffending British subject, wearing at the time the national uniform, and whether the Government would state in what that reparation consisted? He had heard a report to the effect that the Tuscan Government had directed their Charge d' Affaires in this country to complain of the conduct of Captain Codd of the Firebrand, and to require that that officer should be reprimanded, or that, at all events, some unfavourable notice should be taken of his proceedings. He should like to be informed whether there was any foundation for that rumour?
§ The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that some misapprehension appeared to exist as to the precise nature of the inquiries addressed to the Government on a previous occasion, with respect to this unfortunate circumstance. On a former evening an hon. Member rose in his place and stated that he had been informed that an officer of Her Majesty's service, in full uniform, had been struck down and otherwise ill-treated by the police in Tuscany, and he inquired whether it was in the power of the Government to afford any authentic information on the subject. He (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) thereupon rose and stated, that the hon. Member had been inaccurate in stating that an officer in Her Majesty's service had been subjected to injurious treatment in Leghorn, but that the facts of the case were these—that a corporal of marines, who had been on shore upon leave, had got into a squabble with the police, that he had been very badly treated, and that the Tuscan Government had, in consequence, imprisoned the head of the police for a period of eight days. He (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) had not given the hon. Member or the House to understand that this imprisonment was in consequence of any demand for redress on the part of Her Majesty's Government, for at the same time that they received information of the outrage they were also apprised of this conduct on the part of the Tuscan Government with respect to their agent of police. The only additional information that he could afford must be conveyed in the assurance that the punishment of arrest for eight days had never been accepted as 895 sufficient redress or reparation by the Government—that communications had taken place and were still in progress on the subject—and that the Government were still, as at first, of opinion that the police officer's imprisonment was not a measure of adequate reparation for the outrage inflicted. With regard to the other matter to which the noble Lord had alluded—the statement that an application had been made by the Tuscan Government to have Captain Codd reprimanded—he could only say, that he did not believe that there was the least foundation for any such statement, and regarding such an application, it was scarcely necessary to say that the Government would not listen to it for a moment.
§ LORD DUDLEY STUARTsaid, that if he had been correctly informed, no imprisonment whatever had been inflicted on the superintendent of police. It was a subordinate officer of police, a constable, he believed, who had been punished.
§ The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that on referring to the despatch, which he had not as yet had an opportunity of reading, he found that the officer was described as le Chef de Poste de la Gendarmerie, which, he apprehended, justified the expression he had used as Head of the Police.
§ LORD DUDLEY STUARTwould also be glad to learn whether the Government were in a position to give any additional information respecting the case of Mr. Mather?
§ The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that the case of that gentleman being at present the subject of active communication, it was not in his power to enter into any details respecting it.