Lords Sitting of 19 April 1849

MINUTES.
Took the Oaths.—The Lord Bishop of Tuam, Killala, and Achonry.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1a St. John's, Newfoundland, Rebuilding; Grants of Land (New South Wales).
2a Prisoners' Removal (Ireland).
Reported,—Spirits (Ireland).
3a Petty Sessions; Recovery of Wages (Ireland); Protection of Justices (Ireland).
PETITIONS PRESENTED. By Lord Stanley, from Kildare, that the proposed Rate in Aid may be extended to all Descriptions of Property.—By the Earl of St. Germans, from Antrim, against the proposed Rate in Aid (Ireland) Bill.—By Lord Campbell, from Mevagissey, for the Adoption of such Measures as may secure the immediate Liberation of Mr. Shore.—From Kirkcaldy, against the Repeal of the Navigation Laws.—From Nova Scotia, for Inquiry into the Case of Mr. Fairbanks.—By Lord Stanley, from Innishannon, for the Establishment of a complete System of Railway Communication throughout Ireland.—From the Clergy and Laity of the Church of England, that Article 11, Section 3, Cap. 2, may be Expunged from the Criminal Law Consolidation Bill.—By the Bishop of Oxford, from Bermondsey, Glasgow, and other Places, for the Adoption of Measures for the Suppression of Seduction and Prostitution.—From Carlisle and other Places, against the Granting of any new Licenses to Beer Shops.

AFFAIRS OF SICILY.
LORD STANLEY: Perhaps the noble Marquess will allow me to ask him when the papers relative to the recent interference of this country in the affairs of Sicily will be presented to the House? Our mediation having ceased, and all further interference being now unnecessary, I conceive
452
that there can be no reason whatever for the further postponement of the production of these papers. I wish also to ask the noble Marquess whether instructions have been given to Her Majesty's naval forces to withdraw from the waters of Sicily, as the civil war there has been renewed, and whether those instructions (if given) have been acted upon?
The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNE: I think the time has arrived when these papers in extenso ought to be laid on the table of the House. I certainly had hoped to have been able to present them this very day, but I regret, though every exertion has been made by the Foreign Office, that I am unable to do so—they are not quite ready. With respect to the other question, I will say most distinctly that our naval force, under Sir W. Parker, has, under instructions sent to him for that purpose, been withdrawn from the waters of Sicily. When I state that that force has been so withdrawn, of course I do not mean to say that no ships whatever have been left on the coast of Sicily; but I say that those that have been so left, have been left solely with a regard to the interests of British subjects or British property, and with positive instructions not to interfere, either directly or indirectly, in the hostilities now unfortunately renewed, except for the protection of British property. When we consider what may unhappily be the end of the contest, which unfortunately has been renewed in those parts, care must be taken to ensure for British property and British subjects that respect to which they are entitled from all belligerent Powers.
LORD STANLEY: The answer of the noble Marquess is entirely to the point. So far from complaining of the course which has been pursued under the present circumstances, I think that the Government would have neglected its duty if it had not left one or two ships on the coast of Sicily for the protection of British interests, British subjects, and British property; and I am glad to hear from the noble Marquess, that the instructions given to the commanders of those ships are not to interfere, either directly or indirectly, in the contest going on there, but to confine themselves exclusively to the protection of British interests and property.

NORTH WALES RAILWAY COMPANY.
LORD MONTEAGLEmoved the Order of the Day for the attendance of William

453
Chadwick, Chairman, and John Marriner, late Secretary, of the North Wales Railway Company, at the bar of the House. The noble Lord stated at length the circumstances of the case, contending that the persons in question had grossly misapplied the funds entrusted to them; that they had eluded the orders of the House; and that they had been guilty of fraud upon Parliament. He asked, therefore, whether their Lordships thought that such a case ought to be passed over in silence?
The Yeoman Usher having informed their Lordships that they were in attendance, the noble Lord moved that they be called in.
LORD CAMPBELLobserved, that what the parties had to answer for at the bar was simply their having refused to obey the orders of the House.
The Motion having been put and carried, they were called in, and being asked by the LORD CHANCELLOR what they had to offer in explanation of their conduct in not having produced certain accounts ordered by this House on the 3rd and 25th August last.
MR. Chadwick replied, that had he received any notice to that effect, nothing would have prevented him from attending to the orders of their Lordships. But the evidence given before their Lordships had been misapprehended. He denied that he had ever received a summons, or that there had been any difficulty interposed to serving him with a summons.
MR. Marriner said, that he had done everything in his power to conform with the orders of the House. He had laid the orders of the House before the board of directors, but had failed in procuring the information required by their Lordships. He then repeated the statement he had formerly made at the bar, as to the steps which he took to procure the accounts demanded by their Lordships.
They were then ordered to withdraw.
LORD MONTEAGLEbegged to observe, that the explanation which had been offered to their Lordships by Mr. Chadwick, amounted merely to this—that be controverted the statement made on oath at the bar of their Lordships' House by one of their own officers. The explanation had reference to the service of notice, but their present proceedings related to the non-performance of their Lordships' orders in not producing certain documents, though they had the admission of the parties themselves that they had received
454
those orders. He would not say that this attempt at explanation aggravated the offence, but unquestionably it could not remove from the minds of any one of their Lordships the conclusion to which they must come, that there was a deliberate intention to disobey their Lordships' orders, and that the moment the parties had freed themselves from the power of Parliament, as they falsely considered, they proceeded to do an illegal act. Nothing was further from his intention than to mix up the case of the misconduct of those parties and a breach of privilege, except so far as the conduct of those parties was necessary to explain the motive with which the breach of privilege took place. It was due to the public at large, that that House, holding its privileges in trust for the people, should not allow those privileges to be trifled with; above all, when the object was to defeat the general law of the land. In conclusion he begged to move—
"That William Chadwick, having been guilty of a contempt of this House in not obeying the orders of this House of the 3rd of August and the 25th of August last, be for his said offence committed to the custody of the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod until the further order of this House."
On Question, agreed to, and ordered accordingly.
LORD MONTEAGLEthen moved to resolve—
"That John Marriner, having been guilty of a contempt of this House in not obeying the orders of this House of the 3rd of August and 25th of August last, be for his said offence committed to the custody of the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod until the further order of this House."
On Question, agreed to, and ordered accordingly.

THE FRENCH EXPEDITION TO ITALY.
LORD BEAUMONTbegged to put a question to the noble Marquess below him (the Marquess of Lansdowne) with respect to the expedition sent by the French Government to the coast of Italy. It was not his intention to say one word as to the policy or impolicy of that measure; further than this, that if that expedition were undertaken to put down the republic now established in Rome, and to restore the Pope, it was a curious coincidence that the first step in public affairs of the democratic republic in France should be to destroy another republic that was imitating its own example. It was strange that the first step of a Government established on the ruins of a monarchy should be to restore a

455
monarch who was perhaps the most absolute in all Europe. However strange such a thing might appear, it would be still more strange if it were done with the approbation or concurrence of this country. It would certainly appear to be rather strange if the Pope should owe the restoration of his temporal power to this Protestant Government. He was particularly anxious to ask, after what the noble Marquess had stated that evening with regard to Sicily, whether the Government of this country had taken any part in the way of instigation to the French Government, or in the way of concurring with the French Government in the step they had taken with regard to Rome? After what had fallen from the noble Marquess that evening, and his professions of neutrality with regard to Sicily and Naples—bearing also in mind the bloody scenes and atrocious enormities that had taken place during the struggle between those countries, and that this country having interfered, and having been pledged in honour to continue that interference, had abandoned it—he must say it would be strange if this country did not hesitate to interfere in the internal affairs of another country where no such bloody scenes had occurred, and where there seemed to be unanimity amongst the population. Under these circumstances he put the question to the noble Marquess, whether this country had either instigated or concurred in the step taken by the French Government? It might depend upon the answer of the noble Marquess whether, on a future occasion, he should not feel it to be his duty to bring the whole conduct of the Government with respect to Italian and Sicilian affairs before the House on a substantive Motion, with a view of eliciting from the House an opinion of approbation or disapprobation of its rectitude and policy.
The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNEhad no hesitation in telling the noble Lord that the information which he had received with respect to the occurrence to which he had referred—namely, the intervention of the French Government in the affairs of Rome, and the departure of a French expedition for Italy—was perfectly correct. That expedition, however, had not been instigated or suggested by this country, nor had it been the subject of any private negotiation or communication between this Government or that of France, save that an intimation of that expedition had been received. He was not prepared to say
456
that the objects of that expedition were of a nature that the Government of this country would disapprove of. After those observations, he hoped his noble Friend would not consider him as in the slightest degree acquiescing in the statement he had made respecting another country unfortunately engaged in war, but under circumstances between which and the French expedition to Italy, there was no connexion whatever. With respect to the unfortunate contest going on in Sicily, their conduct with respect to that country would, he trusted, he found to be satisfactory, and he denied that, with regard to it, Her Majesty's Government had broken any pledge whatever. House adjourned till To-morrow.