§ SIR JOSHUA WALMSLEYSir, I beg to ask a question of the noble Lord the Secretary of State for the Home Department relative to the statements that have been made connecting the late Governor of Hungary, Louis Kossuth, with the seizure of warlike stores at Rotherhithe. It will be in the recollection of the House that when I asked a similar question about a fortnight since, I was informed that legal proceedings were then pending; and, in consequence of that answer, I read a letter or communication from M. Kossuth, in which he unequivocally stated 797 that he had no connexion, either directly or indirectly, with any warlike stores or arms in this country. But as statements arising out of this question are gaining credence in the Metropolis, to the great injury of the late Governor of Hungary, I beg now to ask the noble Lord the Home Secretary, whether the legal investigation into the seizure of arms or warlike stores at Rotherhithe has resulted in substantiating the charges or insinuations that Louis Kossuth was connected therewith; and whether the police have been employed to watch the residence of Louis Kossuth, or the houses of other political refugees?
§ VISCOUNT PALMERSTONSir, the House is of course aware that one of the proceedings before the magistrates at the Bow Street police office in regard to the seizure of gunpowder is closed, and that a decision has been given, With regard to the other proceeding, upon the case of the rockets; the magistrate at Bow Street interrupted the proceedings, stating that he thought they ought to be pursued before another tribunal. The hon. Gentleman asks me what is the result of the latter proceedings, as regards certain imputations cast upon M. Kossuth? Really I cannot do more than say that that which has hitherto passed in the proceedings is before the public, and every man will form his own judgment upon that which has been stated in evidence. When the further proceedings, which have been pointed out by the magistrate, shall have taken place, and the case is entirely finished, then the public, of course, will have before them grounds for forming their own judgment. With regard to the second question, it is the duty of the police, according to their general and according to their special instructions, to watch the proceedings of any persons, whether Englishmen or foreigners, who may be supposed, rightly or wrongly, to be contemplating any breach of the laws of England; and neither the house of M. Kossuth, nor of any political refugee in this country, can be exempted from those ordinary precautions which may be taken with regard to any individual, whether he be a British subject or a foreigner.
§ MR. BRIGHTI observe, Sir, from the answer of the noble Lord on the former evening, as well as on this, that he wishes it to be assumed that this case is merely one of the ordinary cases which arise in a police office in London, where somebody goes before the magistrates and 798 makes a declaration that certain things are being done contrary to law; on which, as a matter of course, the police are introduced to take cognisance of them. But I want to ask the noble Lord whether the proceedings taken by the magistrates and the police in this matter were not, in the first place, initiated by, or did they not arise from direct or indirect instructions from, the department of which the noble Lord is the chief? I am not at all afraid to say what my object is in wanting to know this. I want to know it because I see that the noble Lord, in his answer to a similar question the other night, and in his answer now, has taken a course which, in my opinion, is not becoming his position, and not becoming the Government of this country, with regard to Kossuth. I have never seen Kossuth since he was in Manchester a year or two ago—I have never seen him or spoken to him since he came to London; and I am now acting as I would act if the case were that of the humblest instead of the most distinguished of the Hungarians. You speak in this House and in the other House of Parliament as if you intend to offer a refuge here for exiles from foreign countries; and you allow Kossuth to live here. But it is feared, and indeed it has been stated broadly in the public press, that either directly or indirectly you set, or permit to be set, spies upon his house, and upon all persons who go into that house, or who are supposed to have any communication with him. Then you seize, by the police, certain warlike stores at Rotherhithe. The newspaper which is the great organ of the Government publishes the most defamatory charges with regard to Kossuth. The noble Lord, who must know all the facts as much as any man in this kingdom, is asked in this House, not to tell all he knows, but when asked distinctly, "Is there any evidence in your possession which can connect, or does connect, Kossuth with the proceedings at Rotherhithe?" the noble Lord rises in his place, and he speaks in an evasive manner. He says, "I do not cast any imputations upon Kossuth, or upon anybody else." No, of course not; but the noble Lord allows these charges to go forth to the world. He is the man of all others who can do justice to Kossuth in the matter, if he has been ill-treated, as I believe he has been; yet the noble Lord abstains purposely. That is evident. Whilst he cannot certainly bring home these charges against 799 Kossuth, he studiously avoids saying anything that can lead the public to believe, or to feel, that there is really no evidence whatever against him. I do not think that is the way we ought to treat any exile in this country. My own opinion of Kossuth is, that he honestly intends to obey the laws of the country whilst he is in this country; and, further, we have his own express declaration, as a man of honour, which I believe has never yet been challenged, that he is in no degree connected with these transactions. Then, I say, while these charges are being circulated, if there be any evidence of them, it is the business and the duty of the noble Lord to say so. If such evidence is forthcoming at any future time, let Kossuth be amenable to the law, as any other man would be who breaks it. I want to throw no shield over him; but, sitting here, I will not be a party to a studied evasion, which is intended to damage the character of Kossuth, when there is not a particle of evidence that he is connected with these transactions. I wish, therefore, for the noble Lord to say whether the Home Office instigated these proceedings, or whether there is any evidence to show any connexion between Kossuth and the making of warlike stores, or with any infraction of the laws of this country?
§ VISCOUNT PALMERSTONI cannot help expressing my extreme surprise, Sir, at the ignorance of the hon. Gentleman as to those constitutional principles which ought to govern, not only a Minister of the Crown in this country, but every Member of this House. The hon. Gentleman takes me to task because I have not chosen to answer a question which no man had a right to put to me. The question which the hon. Gentleman asks is, what is my opinion as to the effect, and as to the possible or probable result, of the judicial proceedings which are not yet terminated? Sir, if I were to give an answer to that question, I should be very greatly departing from my duty. I should be doing that which neither I nor the hon. Gentleman himself has any right to do. Investigations and proceedings before a court of justice are going on; the result of those proceedings will explain themselves; and it is not for me nor for any other man to say what the effect will be upon any individual of those proceedings when they may be completed. So much for the constitutional knowledge of the hon. Gentleman. Then the hon. Gentleman asks me whether these proceedings 800 were authorised, initiated, or directed by me. They were. I am not the man to do anything and then shrink from the responsibility. I shrink not from the responsibility of any act which I may think it my duty to undertake to do. As to refugees, they are, while in this country, as free as the air they breathe—as safe as the land they tread; but upon condition that they shall not violate the laws of the country, nor abuse the hospitality which this country throws over every man who may seek shelter from oppression abroad within its limits. But I hold it to be the duty of the Secretary of State, if he has reason to think that any man, whether a foreigner or a British subject, is contemplating a violation of the laws, or is likely to abuse the shelter which has been granted to him by the hospitality of the country, to take stops to obtain such information, and to adopt measures for the punishment of any man, be he Englishman or foreigner, if he violates the law, or renders himself amenable to any tribunals of the country.
§ MR. BRIGHTI must be permitted to explain. The noble Lord assumes that I asked him a question about the proceedings that are pending with regard to Mr. Hale, whereas I asked him a question with regard to Kossuth, because I felt that he had been charged unjustly. If the charge before the magistrates had been against Kossuth, I should not have asked the question; but it was against Mr. Hale—and there is the distinction. Kossuth, who was entirely outside, was charged by a powerful Government newspaper with a great crime. I was, therefore, justified in asking the question, both by the practice of this House and the constitution.
§ MR. COBDENI have yet to learn, Sir, whether, according to the constitutional practice of this House, it is not competent for any hon. Member of this House to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, in his place, questions with regard to the conduct of the judicial or magisterial authorities of the country. I know nobody responsible to this House for the proceedings of magistrates but the Secretary of State for the Home Department; and certainly I have never heard this plea of constitutional rule set up before. I have heard a question put to the noble Lord with regard to an unfortunate female, and I heard from the noble Lord a not very grave or fitting answer in reply; but it was not said by the Home Secretary that it was unnecessary 801 to give explanations of the conduct of the magistrates in that case. And in this, if Mr. Commissioner Mayne sets spies before my house, instead of before M. Kossuth's—and he has as much right to set them before mine as before his—then surely there is nothing unconstitutional in an hon. Member's rising—after giving notice, as did the hon. Member for Leicester (Sir J. Walmsley)—to ask what such a proceeding meant. I think, therefore, that the answer given by my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester (Mr. Bright), and the noble Lord's taunting him with ignorance of constitutional law, looks very much like an attempt to avoid the question. But the noble Lord has not, after all, been so cautious as is his wont, for he admits that the instructions emanated from the Home Office, so that of course the House holds him responsible to them for his conduct in the matter. This, then, is no ordinary case. If the police have been set to work by the noble Lord to watch the house of Kossuth, or indeed of any other individual, we may reasonably presume that the noble Lord has information about the individual whom he orders to be watched, such as warrants his giving those instructions; and if the noble Lord has such information, we have a right to ask him for it, and to demand to know on what grounds he takes these proceedings. [Cries of" No, no!"] Do not let hon. Gentlemen opposite unnecessarily approve such a course; do not let them put themselves in the position of supporting Austrian influence against an unfortunate refugee. If you [addressing the Opposition] are anxious for office, you will be quiet in this matter; you will gain no popularity in the country by this. What I want to know is this, Are the boastings of this country that we are different from Austria, that we are not like the French, with or without foundation? Are they boastings, or are they realities? If they are realities, we do not expect that when an illustrious refugee comes for protection to our shores, our own Government will set the police as spies before his doors. What, I ask, has he done? What is the information which induces the noble Lord to have those premises watched? And where did the noble Lord get that information? The noble Lord may be sure the matter will not rest here. He has said too much to let it rest where it is; and if he will not answer now, he may be sure he will be asked again on what information he has given his instructions to the police, whether that 802 information turn out to be well founded, according to the subsequent inquiries, and whether he now feels justified in the proceedings he has adopted.
§ MR. PHINNsaid, he could not but regret the tone the discussion had taken. No man could know bettor than the noble Lord that a constitutional jealousy of foreign Powers interfering in this country was a feeling that must be permitted in either House of Parliament. When they found this circumstance following so closely on the renewed and reiterated remonstrances of Austria with reference to the Hungarian exiles in this country, Englishmen were necessarily touchy and jealous on the subject. If proceedings were to be taken in Courts of Law, no doubt reserve was justifiable; but this matter had now been before the public for a fortnight; it had been announced to them as though some great secret of State, of some frightful conspiracy, was to be brought before the public. Now it had dwindled down to a mere police information as to an improper quantity of gunpowder or rockets being found on certain premises. He wished to ask the noble Lord whether he intended to take proceedings against Kossuth. Charges of this kind ought not to hang over the head of any man without being brought to some speedy issue or determination; least of all over the head of an exile, who must and did receive much commiseration from a very large number of people in this country. If the proceedings had been instituted against Kossuth, the noble Lord's answer would have been a perfectly correct one. But they were initiatory proceedings against the Hales, who were to be brought to trial; and with regard to them, it was quite right that the information should be reserved. But an opportunity had been taken, unfairly, unjustly, and unnecessarily, to those proceedings, to introduce the name of Kossuth, when he had no opportunity of giving an answer; and on that ground the noble Lord was bound to intimate to the House whether or not it was his intention to institute proceedings against that illustrious refugee, towards whom so considerable a portion of the community felt strong sympathy and commiseration.
§ MR. FITZSTEPHEN FRENCH, said, he could not but express his surprise that any such attack as they had witnessed that evening should have been made upon a statesman who had done more than any other Minister of past or modern times to 803 exalt the name of England, and to make it honoured and respected, not only amongst Continental nations, but throughout the whole world. The reports which had been published in the newspapers of that morning furnished an ample vindication of all that had been done in this matter by the noble Lord at the head of the Home Department. It could not be denied that the evidence which had been brought forward in the course of the investigation before the magistrate at Bow-street, was of a highly important and significant character; nor should it be forgotten that the only answer they had heard to that evidence was the personal opinion of the hon. Member for Manchester as to the purity of M. Kossuth's intentions. That opinion was, no doubt, given in all sincerity; but it should be remembered that the hon. Member, according to his own statement, was not on terms of intimacy with M. Kossuth, and had no further knowledge of him than consisted in the fact of his having had an interview with him some time ago in Manchester.
§ VISCOUNT PALMERSTONSir, I am sorry to trespass on the attention of the House again, but I think those Gentlemen who have spoken, especially the hon. Member for the West Riding (Mr. Cobden), have entirely lost sight of the question which was put to me. I did not shrink from answering any question put to me with regard to my own conduct, and the question put to me on that subject I answered plainly and positively. But I was asked, in addition, what, in my opinion, would be the result with respect to one person of certain proceedings instituted against another? I declined answering that, but I said, "Wait till this is over, and then the investigation will answer itself." With regard to what was said by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Bath (Mr. Phinn), and by the Member for the West Riding, as to the proceedings instituted against Mr. Hale, I have only to say that those proceedings, in reference to the manufacture of rockets, are pending and will be continued. No proceedings have been instituted against M. Kossuth. I have brought no charge against M. Kossuth. I have never mentioned his name in this matter. I was asked questions for the purpose of inducing me to mention his name, but I did not. I have brought no charge against M. Kossuth, and I beg to add that I am not responsible for anything that may appear in any of the newspapers.
§ LORD DUDLEY STUARTsaid, the first answer of the noble Lord was a mistake, and not the first into which he had fallen. He had been under the necessity of correcting his statement, that Hale had 500 lbs. of gunpowder in his possession, when it turned out that he had not half that quantity. He said the first part of the case against the Hales was closed. That was not quite correct. The police magistrate had given his decision; one that had astonished a great many persons well able to judge; but Mr. Hale intended to appeal to a superior Court, and that decision might be set aside. It turned out that the person in whose possession the powder was found was a manufacturer, and as such had a right to have almost the quantity that was found—within about 5l. 14s. worth. All that the warmest friends of foreign refugees could claim was, that they should be treated exactly the same as Her Majesty's subjects. But the noble Lord admitted that some of these refugees were subject to that which could not be expressed in English—a system of police surveillance. At least the noble Lord refused to state that the police had not been directed to watch some of these persons. The police haunted their steps, watched their going out and coming in, took notice of everybody coming to their houses, and insinuated themselves in disguise as servants. This might be done to foreign refugees; and the noble Lord had also stated, not long ago, that the law was the same with regard to British subjects, so that not only Kossuth, but every one of themselves, was subject to be treated in this manner; and we could not tell whether any one we employed might not be a detective or a policeman in disguise. But would Englishmen, when they knew it, be long content to live under such a system as this? He thought not. When it came to be known that we were all subject to this system of police surveillance and espionage, such a feeling would be raised in the country as would make it inconvenient for any Government to continue to sanction such proceedings.
§ Subject dropped.