HL Deb 09 May 1854 vol 133 cc5-37

Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.

LORD CAMPBELL ,

in moving the second reading of this Bill, said, that he was well aware of the responsibility he incurred by laying this Bill on the table of their Lordships' House, inasmuch as it sought to extend the penal law of the country. He hoped that the Bill would operate only by way of prevention, and that, after it had passed into law, what it sought to remedy would have ceased to exist. At the same time he proposed to establish a new misdemeanor, which, although liable only to a mild punishment, could not be proposed without casting upon the person who proposed it the burden of proving that it would not interfere with any natural or constitutional right, and that some evil had been experienced, or might be apprehended, which rendered legislation necessary. He believed that he should be able to show to their Lordships that the Bill now before them did not interfere with any natural or constitutional right, and that it was called for by evils which had been experienced, and by greater evils which might be apprehended. There could, he presumed, be no doubt that the law of nations was correctly laid down in the preamble of the Bill; there could be no doubt that, by the law of nations, intercourse between States could only be legitimately carried on by the Governments of those States, or by Ministers or officials duly authorised to carry on negotiations. It would be pedantry in him to quote authorities upon this subject; but he could, by quotations from Grotius down to the present time, show their Lordships that every jurist had either assumed the doctrine, or had expressly laid it down for law. He should content himself with referring their Lordships to an authority which they would all reverence—he meant Edmund Burke—an Englishman, or he was perhaps wrong in saying Englishman, because he was one of the glories of Ireland. Mr. Burke, in his celebrated letter to the Duke of Portland, published in 1793, used this language:—"The laws and constitution of the kingdom intrust the sole and exclusive right of communicating with foreign potentates to the King. This is an undisputed part of the legal perogative of the Crown." Then Mr. Burke designated an unauthorised interference with a foreign Government "a most unconstitutional act," and added— The legitimate and sure mode of communication between this nation and foreign Powers is rendered uncertain, precarious, and treacherous, by being divided into two channels, by which means the foreign Powers can never be assured of the real authority or validity of any public transaction whatsoever. He then pointed out that such unauthorised communications "make a highway in England for the intrigues of foreign Courts in our affairs;" and concluded with these emphatic words— This is a sore evil, an evil from which, before this time, England was more free than any other nation. Nothing can preserve us from that evil, which connects Cabinet factions abroad with popular factions here, but the keeping sacred the Crown as the only channel of communication with every other nation. Now, the facts upon which Mr. Burke based these observations were, he believed, not actually existing; but the authority of that statesman's name upon the abstract question of law was equally great, this being the doctrine he laid down upon the supposition that the state of things which he apprehended really did exist. There could be no doubt that even with those who had no evil intention—even with the loyal, the patriotic, and the intelligent—evil might arise from unauthorised communications with foreign Powers. They might thwart unconsciously the measures of their own Government; they might lay themselves open to mistification and cajolery on the part of those with whom they interfered; and they might be made the tools of foreign Powers in spreading in this country doctrines and opinions that were unfavourable to the Government which then existed. Now, could not their Lordships suppose, if such evils might arise from the unauthorised interference of those who were loyal and well-intentioned, what might not be apprehended from those who were disloyal, disaffected, and factious? They might in this way seek to thwart the measures of the Government of their native country; they might be the instrument of bringing about a war, and of sowing dissension, discord, and disaffection at home. Upon this subject, although the law of nations was such as he had described, our municipal law was defective, and it was in order to cure this defect that be ventured to propose the present Bill. For any offence committed within the realm the existing municipal law was sufficient to punish. For instance, if there were a conspiracy in the county of Middlesex for inviting the wrongful interference of a foreign nation, even although we might not happen to be at war with that nation, no doubt our courts would have jurisdiction, and the offender might be punished. But for what was done abroad you have no remedy by the common law of England. There must be a grand jury in each county, and that grand jury is to find each indictment, which indictment can only relate to what is done within the body of the county. It followed that those who combined to thwart the measures of the Government, or to do in connection with any foreign Government what would be detrimental to the interests of their own country, would escape punishment, unless it could be proved that the plan originated in England, and unless you could show an overt act committed in England. Although it could have been proved that at the bar of the National Convention in France an address was presented of a most seditious nature, calling upon the French nation to take part against England, you could not, by the simple proof of that fact, award punishment. With regard to high treason and murder, this defect had been remedied, and wherever they were committed, in whatever part of the globe, these crimes might be inquired into and punished in the county of Middlesex. With regard, however, to every crime which ranged within the term of misdemeanor, the defect remained unremedied. This being the case, he would draw their Lordships' attention to what had been done by our brethren in America. The first settlers there had carried along with them to the regions beyond the Atlantic the common law of England, and they had in various instances given us an example of improvements effected in that law which we should do well to follow. He must say that in jurisprudence the Americans had gained an ascendancy over us which should not, indeed, excite our envy, hut which should prompt our emulation. Now, what course had been taken upon this subject in America—and taken, be it remembered, in no way contrary to the natural or constitutional rights of American citizens? It was felt in America that very considerable inconvenience was experienced from the interference by American citizens with foreign Governments. That had been felt for some years, and there was a particular instance of it in the case of a certain Dr. Logan, who had been in communication with the French Convention with respect to matters pending between the Governments of America and France. A measure was accordingly proposed by two of the greatest statesmen and greatest patriots that had ever adorned any country—Adams and Jefferson. In 1799 John Adams was President of the United States, and Thomas Jefferson Vice President, and under their auspices a Bill was introduced into Congress, which, with their Lordships' permission, he would now read. It was short, but it was cogent, and he must allow that he was not aware of the existence of this piece of American legislation when he had framed the present Bill. The American Bill was more stringent than his, and provided a severer punishment. These were the words of it— Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, that if any person, being a citizen of the United States, whether he be actually resident or abiding within the United States or in any foreign country, shall, without the permission or authority of the Government of the United States, directly, or indirectly, commence or carry on any verbal or written correspondence or intercourse with any foreign Government, or any officer or agent thereof; with an intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign Government, or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the Government of the United States; or if any person, being a citizen of, or resident within the United States, and not duly authorised, shall counsel, advise, aid, or assist in any such correspondence, with intent as aforesaid, he or they shall be deemed guilty of a high misdemeanor, and, upon conviction before any court of the United States having jurisdiction thereof, shall be punished by a fine not exceeding 5,000 dollars, and by imprisonment during a term of not less than six months, nor exceeding three years. Then follows this proviso— Provided always, that nothing in this Act contained shall be construed to abridge the right of individual citizens of the United States to apply, by themselves or their lawful agents, to any foreign Government, or the agents thereof, for the redress of any injuries in relation to person or property, which such individuals may have sustained from such Government, or any of its agents, citizens, or subjects. This Bill was introduced into the House of Representatives in America, where it was at first strongly opposed; but after many discussions it passed by a majority of 58 to 36. It then went up to the Senate, where—he might say so without offence to the House of Representatives—there was more calmness, more statesman-like knowledge, and where, as his noble and learned Friend (Lord Brougham) reminded him, they had the foreign policy of the country directly under their cognisance. In the Senate this Act was carried by a majority of 18 to 2. There were only two dissentients, and it received the assent of the President, and became law on the 30th of January, 1799. He (Lord Campbell) was informed that the Bill had worked most beneficially in America, and his information came from undoubted authority—from Mr. Buchanan, the present Minister of the United States here—one of the illustrious line of jurists and statesmen who had adorned the United States. The law had not become a dead letter, although it had never been acted upon by way of prosecution, for Mr. Buchanan stated that there had not been one single prosecution instituted for the infraction of the law, and it had been thoroughly observed by the citizens of the United States. This then, he thought, was a high example, to which great weight ought to be attached. But he allowed that the existence of such a law as this in America would not form sufficient grounds for the interference of Parliament if no inconvenience had been felt, and none was to be apprehended, from the want of such law in England. He should be able to show, however, that the most serious inconvenience had been suffered, and that great inconvenience might be apprehended if Parliament did not interfere in this matter. He would not deny that what was supposed to have taken place in 1791, when there was a dispute between the Empress Catherine and the English Government, did not really happen. Sir Robert Adair, now in his 92nd year, but retaining in full vigour the great talents that he had displayed in early life, and who was a man of the most unsullied character, had declared—and he (Lord Campbell) most implicitly believed him —that what Mr. Burke had imagined respecting his mission to Russia never took place—that he (Sir Robert Adair) was at St. Petersburg during that dispute, but merely as a traveller, improving his mind and acquiring that knowledge which afterwards made him a most accomplished diplomatist and enabled him to render most essential services to his country. He (Lord Campbell) believed, therefore, that in point of fact what Mr. Burke suspected was entirely without foundation. At that time, however, their Lordships would recollect that the Empress Catherine was pursuing her conquests against the Turks. She was striving to make progress in that long-cherished Russian plan of subjugating Turkey and of getting possession of Constantinople and the Dardanelles. Mr. Pitt, at that time Prime Minister, wished to check her ambition. Now, those who in Parliament disapproved of his policy were believed to have sent a deputation to the Empress Catherine, to recommend her to proceed in her course, and to represent that a great part of the English nation sympathised with her. Now, if this had been really done, it was impossible to tell the mischief that might have ensued; and he (Lord Campbell) was at a loss to see what would have been the remedy. The parties might, indeed, have been impeached; but after the experience of that process in the case of Warren Hastings, impeachment was a thing very well to talk of, but certainly no practical remedy for a serious evil of this kind; and he knew of no proceedings before a jury by which punishment could be inflicted for such conduct. He believed that, on the part of the Opposition of that day, there were no grounds for saying that any such deputation had been sent. But just about that time there could be no doubt that a very improper intercourse did take place between English subjects and foreign Powers. When the French Revolution was in progress, and the Convention had become the supreme power of the State, there were various bodies of men in England who wished to imitate the example which had been set in France, who wished to upset our happy limited monarchy, and to establish a republic instead. There were various addresses from such sections of Eng- lish subjects delivered vivâ voce at the bar of the Convention, calling upon the French nation to go to war with their neighbours (who were then in amity with us) and to assist them in bringing about a revolution in this country. He could only give their Lordships a single example of these addresses in the form of an address from the London Constitutional Society, presented in the year 1792. It was addressed "To the National Convention in France, Servants of a Sovereign People and Benefactors of Mankind;" and was presented at the bar of the Convention by two deputies —Mr. Frost and Mr. Barlow—both of them British subjects. It was couched in these words:— We rejoice that your Revolution has arrived at that point of perfection which will permit us to address you by this title; it is the only one that can accord with the character of true legislators. Every successive epoch in your affairs has added something to the triumphs of liberty, and the glorious victory of the 10th of August has finally prepared the way for a Constitution which we trust you will establish on the basis of reason and nature. The events of every day are proving that your cause is cherished by the people in all your continental vicinity; that a majority of each of those nations are your real friends, whose Governments have tutored them into apparent foes, and that they only wait to be delivered by your arms from the dreaded necessity of fighting against them. Our Government has still the power, and perhaps the inclination, to employ hirelings to contradict us; but it is our real opinion that we now speak the sentiments of a great majority of the English nation. The people here are wearied with imposture and worn out with war. Go on, Legislators, in the work of human happiness. The benefits will in part be ours but the glory shall be all your own. In this career of improvement your example will soon be followed; for nations, rising from their lethargy, will reclaim the rights of man with a voice which man cannot resist. This was a specimen of the address delivered by English deputations at that time, and we had no law to punish or prevent such proceedings; for when Frost and his companion returned, it would have been no evidence against them to show that they had presented such a document to the Convention. This address incited the French to make war against our allies; it sought to encourage the French Assembly to assist the English nation to change their form of Government; and it held up the standard of universal revolution. Soon after this, war was declared between the two countries, and then the Treason and Sedition Bills were brought in. These Bills, while the war existed, of course effectually prevented any such unauthorised communications; but when, in 1815, the war was at an end, the law remained in its original defective state. On account of the tranquillity which prevailed for a number of years, the evil was little felt; but in the great revolutionary year of 1848 much inconvenience was again the result. Their Lordships would remember—his noble Friend then Lord Lieutenant of Ireland (the Earl of Clarendon) would certainly remember—the revolutionary attempts which characterised that year. In Ireland a plan was formed for dissolving the connection between that country and Great Britain, and for forming Ireland into an independent republic; and, when a republic was established in France, there went a deputation from Ireland, headed by Mr. Smith O'Brien, to the members of the Provisional Government, who then represented the Government of France. He held in his hand the address which had been presented to the ruling powers at Paris by Mr. Smith O'Brien, and which ran thus:— We salute you as arbiters of the future destinies of the human race, as the liberators of enslaved nations. We, from whom nationality has been wrested by the most infamous means—we, who ever feel the evils arising from this inexpressible wrong—we, the people of Ireland, demand your sympathy. Ireland has declared that once more she shall be free and independent. Be ever ready to succour the oppressed. Make France the centre, not only of civilisation and of the arts, but also of universal liberty. Deputations from Liverpool and other towns in England delivered similar addresses; some of them more violent. M. Lamartine, on that occasion, acted with the greatest reserve, and skilfully evaded the request, but it was an application that France should interfere by armed force, and assist Ireland in establishing an independent republic. On returning from Paris, Mr. Smith O'Brien appeared in his place in the House of Commons as though he had done nothing of which he need be ashamed, and the law was quite powerless to reach him. But he was denounced by his (Lord Campbell's) beloved and respected Friend Sir George Grey, then Home Secretary, in a speech which would not, from its force and ability, be forgotten by those who had either heard or read it; but was it right that a person who had delivered such an address to a foreign Government should be allowed to walk about our streets with impunity? The next case of undue interposition on the part of individuals with foreign Governments was that address with which an ex-Lord Mayor of Loudon had waited upon Louis Napoleon. That address had been discussed in the House before, and he would not now dwell upon it. He (Lord Campbell) did not disapprove of the sentiments embodied in the address which Sir James Duke had so presented, in the name, as he stated, of the people of England, and expressive of their opinions, and of their hearty desire for the maintenance of peace, of an entente cordiale with France; but still he thought the course which had been taken by the Lord Mayor on that occasion, under the circumstances, and in that mode, was an example of dangerous precedent, and which it was highly desirable should not recur. If, however, it was desirable that the chief magistrate of the British metropolis should present such an address, let the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs append two or three lines to it, if its terms were unobjectionable, and then the provisions of his (Lord Campbell's) Bill would be satisfied. The last violation that had occurred of the law of nations in this very important respect was the deputation of Quakers who went to pay their homage to the Czar Nicholas. He entertained a profound and sincere respect for the body to which that deputation belonged, and he fully believed that the individuals composing the deputation were men of the highest respectability and strictest loyalty, and were animated by the most innocent and laudable motives; but, admitting this, their Lordships could none the more approve of the course which had been taken by these persons; and it must be well considered that, great as were the inconveniences, the impropriety, the danger of this proceeding on the part of innocent and well-inclined men, inconvenience and danger still greater and more alarming were to be anticipated if such proceedings, passing unnoticed and unguarded against for the future, were to be imitated by men of evil purpose. It so happened that the Czar Nicholas was pursuing measures which the Government of this country thought it indispensable to resist—to resist, if necessary, with the utmost exertion of our power. The horrible massacre at Sinope had already taken place, when three individuals, as a deputation from the whole body of the Quakers of England, set off to St. Petersburg with a view to present to the Emperor Nicholas of All the Russias an address which began in these terms:— To Nicholas, Emperor of All the Russias,—May it please the Emperor! We, the under- signed members of a meeting, representing the religious Society of Friends, commonly called Quakers, in Great Britain, venture to approach the Imperial presence," &c. With such profound respect did they treat the Autocrat, with such 'bated breath did they come into his presence. Then, how did the address proceed? The account he should give of the matter was from an authentic narrative, which had been signed by themselves, and not from any of those invidious descriptions which told how the Emperor, raising the broad-brimmed hats of his admirers, lauded them, and said he would introduce them throughout his dominions. First, let him give their account of what they did when they reached their destination:— On their arrival at St. Petersburg they addressed themselves to Count Nesselrode, Chancellor of the Empire. They sent him a note, requesting an interview, stating that they had not deemed it advisable to apply to their own Minister, and they preferred applying to Count Nesselrode, for the purpose of securing his assistance in the presentation of the address to the Emperor. The Count sent a private secretary to them to fix an hour for receiving them. They had an interview with Count Nesselrode, and met with a very cordial reception. He said that both himself and the Emperor (ego et Rexmeus) approved of their sentiments. Then came the interview, as recorded in the protocol, signed by the three deputies —Mr. Sturge, Mr. Pease, and Mr. Charlton. The address having been delivered in due form and with infinite respect, the Emperor said:— I wish to offer some explanations of my views as to the causes of the present unhappy differences. I have myself acted as my predecessors have done, and the Treaty of Adrianople, in 1849, was as explicit as the former ones in this respect. Turkey recognised the right of religious interference, and fulfilled all her engagements until within the last year or two, when, for the first time, she gave me reason to complain. I will not now advert to those who were her principal instigators on that occasion"—a dig, doubtless, at our representative at Constantinople. "Suffice it to say, that it became my duty to interfere, and to claim from Turkey the fulfilment of her engagements. I have every reason to believe that matters would soon have been settled if Turkey had not been induced by other persons" —a glance at our Foreign Secretary—"to believe that I had ulterior objects in view; that I was aiming at conquest, aggrandisement, and the ruin of Turkey. I have solemnly disclaimed, and do now solemnly disclaim, every such motive. What on my part was prudent foresight has been unfairly construed in your country into a designing policy and an ambitious desire of conquest. I will not attack, and shall only act in self-defence. I have a duty to perform as a Sovereign. The address having been delivered, the deputation did not attempt to recommend that the Czar should yield to the remonstrances of England, but urged arbitration. Next, to carry on the cajolery and mystification thus commenced, the Czar said that the Empress desired to see them, and they were introduced to the Empress and the Grand Duchess Olga. It was quite clear that in the interview with the deputation, the Czar had endeavoured, and successfully, to impress on them that he was a much-injured, extremely moderate, perfectly unambitious, and abominably calumniated person; that he had no evil intentions whatever; that he was a man of peace, like themselves; and, on this authority, he requested they would give him that character in England on their return. The proposition exactly reminded him of a request which had been made to a near relative of his own, now no more, a Member of their Lordships' House, who was once sent for by a fashionable lady against whom certain rumours were afloat not quite consistent with her conjugal fidelity, the purpose of her summons being to request his relative to contradict all such rumours on her authority. "If there were any truth in them," said she, "I certainly must know it, and I therefore desire you will contradict them on my authority." In the same way, the Czar Nicholas, having informed the three Friends, on his own authority, that he was a particularly moderate and unambitious and very ill-used man, desired them to contradict all rumours against him to the contrary, and, accordingly, returning home, they did so, taking infinite pains to publish far and wide among us the particularly authoritative account of himself which the Czar had so successfully impressed upon their simple minds. He held in his hand the account which Mr. Pease had rendered of his mission to a public meeting in the north of England, from which he would read these extracts:— There was nothing unreasonable or anything to ridicule in a body of men who had been in existence for 200 years, and whose number averaged 20,000, sending three of their number to endeavour to bring about a pacific settlement of the disputes… While in St. Petersburg the terrible slaughter of Sinope was performed at the theatres every night. … He was exceedingly grieved and humbled at the course which the press in England had pursued, resorting to abuse and calumny against the Czar. … The impressions conveyed by the press were erroneous and unfounded as regarded the Emperor… From what he saw of the Emperor he was convinced that the estimation in which he was held at St. Petersburg was correct. His noble Friend (the Earl of Clarendon) had failed in bringing about a pacific settlement; but these three Quaker gentlemen thought they could do better. They stated that while they were in St. Petersburg the terrible slaughter of Sinope was represented in the theatres every night. It would be rather curious to know how these men of peaceful disposition had reconciled themselves to the "representation at all the theatres every night of the terrible slaughter of Sinope," or how they had reconciled the reception of that terrible slaughter by the Czar with that eminent kindliness of heart for which they eulogised him. This lecture of Mr. Pease was printed and largely circulated for the purpose of exhibiting the Czar in a favourable light to the people of England, and of making out a case that the war in which we were embarked against him was a war which he had not provoked, and which was in itself quite unjustifiable, or, practically, to set the people against the war, and to impede its successful prosecution. If consequences of such injurious tendency upon the public service should follow from the proceedings of innocent and well-disposed men, what might not be anticipated from the attempts of men of different principles and purposes, if they might visit foreign Sovereigns whenever they took it into their heads to do so? Supposing there were men in this country —and there were, he believed, a few—who believed that "the sick man" had better be knocked on the head, and his spoils divided among two or three favoured Potentates — the Czar, for example, being placed in possession of Constantinople and the Dardanelles—and supposing a deputation from such a faction to wait upon the Czar, and as Englishmen to urge him to resist our Government, and to persist in his designs of aggrandisement, who should say what amount of mischief might not be occasioned by such a course? He therefore thought that the Legislature ought to interfere, not to punish, but to prevent the future occurrence of such deputations, and he had accordingly introduced this Bill to accomplish that object. The Bill contemplated no interference with private interviews between individuals, as such, and foreign Governments—no interference with legitimate private enterprise; it only sought to prevent the interference of unauthorised British subjects on national affairs with foreign Governments. He desired to go no further than this—but so far he hoped their Lordships would consent to go. What were the objections to such a measure? It was said that we might be satisfied with the law of nations as it stood; that the law of nations already forbade this offence; and that there was no occasion for any alteration in our municipal law for the purpose. But we could not enforce the law of nations beyond our own territory, and he had various precedents on which he could rely for the legislation he sought. For example, by the law of nations passports or safe conducts were to be respected, and it was a violation of the law of nations to violate them. Yet it had been deemed expedient to enact a Statute, the 2nd of Hen. V. chap. 6, by which the breaking of safe conducts was made high treason. So, again, by the 29th of Hen. VI. chap. 2, and the 31st of Hen. VI. chap. 4, the Lord Chancellor and Chief Justices may punish offenders who break safe conducts by sea or land, and order restitution. So, by the law of nations, ambassadors and their train could not even be sued in our courts, much less could they be deprived of their liberty in any civil process, yet it had been deemed expedient to embody that rule of the law of nations in a Statute. In the reign of Queen Anne it so happened that an ambassador from Russia was arrested in London, whereupon Peter the Great sent another ambassador to demand the heads of all the offenders who had taken any part in the arrest. The English Government replied that it exceeded their power to comply with His Imperial Majesty's request; but an Act of Parliament was thereupon passed (7th of Anne, chap. 12), declaring all arrests of ambassadors, or of persons in their train entitled to the privileges of embassies, illegal, and subjecting offenders to such penalties and punishments as the Lord Chancellor and the two Chief Justices should ordain. He proposed to act upon the same principle now, and to enforce the law of nations by the municipal law. It was said that we ought, at least, to confine legislation on this head to what took place within the limits of the United Kingdom. Undoubtedly, so far as foreigners were concerned, we must do so; but as to our own subjects, we had a perfect right, and were called upon to legislate all the world over. An example of this had been given in the measure of his noble and learned Friend (Lord Brougham) with regard to slavery, by which all British subjects who should be found engaged in slavery, in whatever part of the world, were held guilty of felony, and might be tried as such at the Old Bailey. Another example was afforded by the Royal Marriage Act, lately discussed in the case of the Sussex peerage. The provisions were held to be binding on all British subjects, whether at home or abroad. So, if the Legislature made it a misdemeanor for a British subject to present an address to a foreign Sovereign with respect to national affairs, that law would be binding on all British subjects, in whatever part of the world they might be. It was suggested that this measure would interfere with the intercourse which took place from time to time between English travellers and foreign Sovereigns; but it would have no such effect. The noble Lord below the gangway (Lord Beaumont) had informed him that not long since he had an interesting interview with the King of Sardinia; and another noble and learned Friend of his had not long since had an interview with the Emperor Louis Napoleon. With such interviews he had no desire to interfere. Such persons had, no doubt, a right to express their own individual opinions in such conversations, and such an interchange of opinions might be both laudable and useful; but the case would have been very different, if his noble Friend had stated that he represented, not his own opinion simply, but that of the county of York. An apprehension was entertained, he believed, that this Bill would interfere with the private business which might be transacted by individuals with foreign Governments. He regretted that the noble Earl who was at the head of the late Government (the Earl of Derby) was not in the House, for that noble Earl was the first Member of their Lordships' House, to whom he had mentioned his intention to bring forward this Bill, and the noble Earl was good enough to discuss the subject with him. The only objection the noble Earl made to the Bill was, that he was afraid it might interfere with the proceedings of British subjects who might wish to negotiate with foreign Governments respecting such matters as the establishment of places of worship or burial-grounds. He (Lord Campbell) apprehended that the Bill would not have any such effect, because those could not be considered either as national or political objects. If, however, such should really be the effect, he (Lord Campbell) did not see any reason why such negotiations should not be conducted through the accredited representatives of the British Government, or with the concurrence of the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. He found, from the public prints, that there were persons in the country who objected to the Bill because they considered that authorised negotiations had been so ill-conducted, and had succeeded so badly, that unauthorised negotiations ought to be permitted. He did not know whether his noble Friends behind him would concur in that view, but he might be allowed to read an extract from a newspaper—the Dundee Advertiser—which had been sent to him, and which contained an article on this subject. That journal said— We object to this proposal, because we think it would be well if there were much more of the unauthorised class of negotiations which seem so offensive to the Lord Chief Justice. Let us ask what there is so pre-eminently desirable in the authorised negotiations' between European Governments? If there be one opinion more prevalent and more justly grounded than another, is it not that the existing diplomacy is treacherous to all popular interests, and a vile conspiracy against the progress of freedom and the advancement of States, as distinguished from the upholding of tottering thrones? Has the secret correspondence so lately published tended to invest the 'authorised negotiations' of Governments with new titles to respect? There is no danger to the people of any country in the honest and unconcealed representations of the views of any number of the inhabitants of one State to the Sovereign of another, but there is danger, as every page of history tells us, in the stealthy manœuvres of Royal confederacies. They have landed us in a fearful war, and we believe the national heart does not desire that during the progress of that war 'authorised negotiations' should alone occur. Let not Lord Campbell delude himself! Now, he must say his opinion was—although there might have been some things a little startling and perplexing in the negotiations that had been carried on by authority—that upon the whole those negotiations had been wisely and judiciously conducted. At times during their progress the Czar might, perhaps, have been a little encouraged to think that he could go any length with impunity, and lie (Lord Campbell), while watching those negotiations, had sometimes been reminded of the Italian proverb, "Qui se fa peccora il lupo mangea"—"He that makes himself a sheep is sure to be devoured by the wolf." Now, however, that he had seen the whole of the negotiations, he must be allowed to express very humbly his approbation of the manner in which they had been conducted by Her Majesty's Government, because it now appeared that the Czar had, from the beginning, a determined purpose of aggrandisement and aggression, and that, if more vigorous measures had been taken at an early stage, the consequences would have been merely to accelerate the action of Russia before this country was well prepared, and we should not have had the advantage of the approval of all mankind, except the deputies of the Quakers. Another objection had been urged against this Bill. He learnt from good authority that the Roman Catholics were apprehensive that, if this measure passed, all communication between the See of Rome and themselves would be prohibited. He could only say, that he was the last man who would wish to throw any impediment in the way of such communications. He had resisted the introduction into the Bill for legalising diplomatic relations with the Court of Rome, which passed their Lordships' House some years ago, of the clause proposed by his noble Friend the late Lord Lieutenant of Ireland (the Earl of Eglinton), prohibiting the reception of any Minister from the Court of Rome who should be in holy orders. He knew that this clause had produced much mischief; for if it had not existed, there would have been an authorised Minister from Rome at the British Court, and we should have heard nothing of the Papal Aggression, or of that miserable contest about the Ecclesiastical Titles Bill which he could not think of without shame. If he received any encouragement to do so, he should be glad to propose the repeal of the clause to which he had referred. Instead of doing anything to prevent intercourse with Rome by our Roman Catholic fellow-subjects, he would rather do all he could to facilitate it. But how would this Bill prevent such intercourse? Civil business was now transacted by accredited agents, a treaty having reference to commerce having been recently concluded by a near relative of his own, under the auspices of the noble Earl near him (the Earl of Clarendon). With intercourse on spiritual matters this Bill would not interfere, because it referred only to intercourse with reference to political affairs. Bulls and documents of a spiritual nature might therefore still be received from Rome. If their Lordships would read the Bill a second time, he would consent to its being referred to a Select Committee, and would propose any noble Lord who expressed his willingness to serve on that Committee to be a Member of it. He could not, of course, consent to make any departure from the principle of the measure, but he should be willing to consider any amendments in its details which might be proposed. Whatever the result of this attempt at legislation might be, he would not regret the part he had taken, for he had been actuated simply by a desire to serve his country; and, as the head of the common law in this kingdom, having found that a defect existed in that law, he had considered it not unbecoming his position to endeavour, to the best of his ability, to remedy that defect.

Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.

LORD LYNDHURST

said, he entertained so high a respect for the professional character of his noble and learned Friend that he always hesitated with respect to any opinion he might hold when he had the misfortune to differ from the noble Lord. He must say, however, that he entertained doubts with regard to the measure which his noble and learned Friend had now submitted to their Lordships. He had doubts as to the form and the extent of the noble and learned Lord's Bill, and he would submit those doubts, and the grounds upon which they rested, to the consideration of their Lordships and of his noble and learned Friend. The noble and learned Lord had said that he was ready, at some future stage of the Bill to make any alterations which might be suggested either in the Committee of the House or in a Select Committee. It was not for him (Lord Lyndhurst) to anticipate the alterations which might be contemplated by his noble and learned Friend, but at present he could only consider the nature and the extent of the Bill as it was laid before the House. He (Lord Lyndhurst) would venture to point out some of the effects and consequences of the measure in its present form. But first, he would direct their Lordships' attention to the preamble of the Bill, which stated that, "according to the law of nations, intercourse between two independent States ought only to be carried on by agents lawfully authorised by those respective States." Now, as two independent States could not come into bodily communication with each other, he knew no manner in which they could correspond except by means of agents, and such agents could not be properly considered as agents unless they were duly authorised for that purpose. It, therefore, required no authority from the law of nations to establish the position stated with so much ceremony in the preamble, and no Act of the municipal law to enforce it—it was a self-evident proposition. But intercourse carried on between the members of one State and the Government of another was not an intercourse between independent States. That was an intercourse between individuals on the one side and a Government on the other, but the Government of the State of which the individuals were subjects was in no way bound by any communication of this description. He (Lord Lyndhurst) had never found any rule laid down by the law of nations which rendered it illegal for individuals of one State to communicate and to have intercourse with the Government of another State with respect either to the acts of that State or to the acts of the State to which those individuals belonged. His noble and learned Friend had cited no authority on this subject, and so far from such intercourse being contrary to the law of nations, it took place constantly, and to the general benefit. What was the case with regard to loans? The subjects of one State had intercourse and communication with respect to such matters, with the Government of foreign States. But, if so, then, according to the terms of this Bill, that all intercourse between individual subjects of one State and the Government of another State, with respect to the acts of that State, are illegal, the parties concerned in such transactions would be liable to punishment as for a misdemeanor? He objected to the form and extent of the Bill of his noble and learned Friend. The noble and learned Lord had not condescended to state to their Lordships the terms of the Bill; but the effect of it was to provide "that if any person, either acting or professing to act on the part of any portion of Her Majesty's subjects, should, without the licence of the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, obtained for that purpose, hold any intercourse with a foreign Government with respect to the acts of that Government, or with respect to the acts of the Government of which such person was a subject, he should be considered and adjudged guilty of a misdemeanor;" so that if he (Lord Lyndhurst), without the licence of the Secretary of State, held any intercourse with the French Government on the part of any portion of Her Majesty's subjects with respect to any act of the French Government, he was to be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor. Now, let their Lordships consider what would be the effect of such a provision. His noble and learned Friend had, indeed, obscurely anticipated the objection. He (Lord Lyndhurst) would ask their Lordships to consider the case of the Roman Catholics of Ireland and of this country. He must remind their Lordships that he was not objecting to a Bill framed according to the law of the United States to which his noble and learned Friend had referred, but he was objecting to the form and extent of the Bill now before them. As an illustration of the consequences of this measure, he would direct their Lordships' attention to occurrences which had taken place two or three years ago, when Her Majesty's Government established certain colleges in Ireland, the object of which was the united education of English and Irish, of Protestant and Roman Catholic students. Conscientious scruples were entertained with regard to that measure by the Roman Catholic hierarchy of Ireland, by the Roman Catholic clergy, and by many laymen, and a mission was despatched to Rome to ascertain the opinion of the See of Rome upon the subject. The opinion of the See of Rome continued their doubts, and they acted accordingly. Now this case came precisely within the terms of the noble and learned Lord's Bill. A mission, composed of individuals representing other individuals, namely, the clergy and laity of the Roman Catholic persuasion in Ireland—proceeded to Rome to hold a correspondence with a foreign Potentate—the head of the Roman Catholic Church—with respect to the acts of the Government of this country. What was the result? It was that the Pope declared his opinion to be adverse to the measure attempted to be carried into effect by Her Majesty's Government. Now, every person engaged in that mission, every person who sanctioned or authorised it—for in misdemeanors all were principals—would, according to the Bill before the House, have been guilty of a misdemeanor, and be subject to fine and imprisonment. He (Lord Lyndhurst) must not for a moment be understood as approving of the conduct of the Roman Catholics on that occasion; but, however he might disapprove of their acts, he was satisfied that the attempt, by any penal enactments, to restrain that species of intercourse would be attended with most dangerous consequences. The noble and learned Lord might say that that was a religious, and not a political question; but, in the case of the Roman Catholic Church, it was almost impossible to define what were religious and what were political questions. They knew, from frequent discussions in that House, that the Roman Catholic religion could not, in practice, be carried on from day to day without constant communications with the See of Rome, without bulls or rescripts issuing from the Court of Rome—from the Sovereign Pontiff—with respect to which communications must of necessity constantly take place. The consequence must be, that the Bill of his noble and learned Friend, in its present form, would create a sensation of the strongest and most unfavourable kind among the Roman Catholics, both in this country and in Ireland. Everybody knew that the noble and learned Lord himself was such an avowed and unflinching advocate for freedom of discussion in religious matters, that there was no danger of his intentions being misinterpreted; otherwise he (Lord Lyndhurst) had no doubt it would have have been supposed that his noble and learned Friend, in a general Bill of this kind, containing such sweeping clauses, entertained some insidious design hostile to the religious liberty of the Roman Catholics and their freedom with respect to religious worship. Some persons might suppose that this restriction was effectually modified by a clause in the Bill which provided that licences might be obtained for communications of this kind from the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs; but those knew little of the feelings of Roman Catholics who supposed that they would allow any interference of a Protestant Secretary of State to check or control, in any degree or in any manner, their communications with the head of their Church. As the Bill at present stood, therefore, and unless it was altered to a very great extent, he regarded it as open, on this ground, to very strong objections. But they must discuss this Bill as it now stood, and not as his noble and learned Friend might remodel it; and if their Lordships would do him the favour to recollect what were stated to be the general terms of the Bill, they would find that scarcely any transaction could take place with foreign States by private persons without involving such parties in the penalties and pains of the measure. There were many commercial establishments in this country connected not only with dif- ferent parts of Europe, but with America; and it frequently happened that there were acts of State affecting the interest of those establishments; but if an individual member of one of those establishments were to make any representation to the Government in consequence of such acts as affecting his interests, he would come within the provisions of the Bill. Again, newspapers are circulated on the Continent; suppose articles to be published in the Times, for instance, commenting on foreign Powers, and the circulation in consequence prohibited, the agent for the newspaper applies immediately for a revocation of the order, representing that the article complained of had been misinterpreted,—that would bring him within the provisions of his noble and learned Friend's Bill. Had he not, therefore, a right to complain of the Bill, and the consequences to which it would lead? But he would refer to another case, which he thought his noble and learned Friend might say ought to be embraced within the measure, and that was a case which would be fresh within their Lordships' recollection. An act of injustice, and cruelty had been committed by a foreign Government on its own subjects—which was the case in Tuscany; two of its Protestant subjects, for an offence against the prevailing law of religion, in consequence of reading some passages of Scripture in private to particular friends, were sentenced to severe punishment — and what was the consequence? Deputations from different Protestant States appeared at Florence for the purpose of remonstrating against this act; one deputation proceeded from this country, as the representative of a body called the Protestant Alliance, and at the head of that deputation was a noble Lord, a Member of this House, distinguished for his strong Protestant feeling. When they arrived at Florence, they were not admitted to the Grand Duke, but they had a conference with his Minister; the address was read, the remonstrance was heard; but, if this Bill had been in force at the time to which he was now referring, every person connected with that deputation would, as a matter of course, have been brought within its provisions, and have been considered guilty of a misdemeanor. Was it meant to restrain acts of this description? Very possibly it might be said that such matters ought to be left to the interference of the diplomatic Ministers or agents of the country, the consequence would be long formal complications extending through many pages of blue books, and which would be ultimately cast aside and forgotten. But what was the case in the instance to which he had referred? A strong popular feeling was aroused, the deputation was listened to, and attended with good effect. He appealed to the noble Earl then sitting upon the cross-benches (the Earl of Shaftesbury), who would tell their Lordships that it was mainly in consequence of that private interposition that the punishment inflicted upon those two individuals was ultimately relaxed. Would their Lordships wish, therefore, to pass a Bill which would have the effect of restraining or preventing such applications as these, and say that parties interfering in such cases should be subjected to the penalties of a misdemeanor? He believed that in the early period of the establishment of the Society for the Suppression of the Slave Trade missions of this description to the different States of Europe issued from time to time, and laid the foundation of that feeling which ultimately led to the almost entire abolition of that abominable traffic, but which under such a Bill as this would have been illegal. With respect to the licence of the Secretary of State, he thought such an arrangement open to great objection. In the first place, in granting such licence, the Secretary of State would have to encounter considerable difficulty, he would require a most minute account of what was intended to be done, and of the language that was to be used; every particular must be known before he could grant the licence; and after obtaining this information, if he were to grant the licence, what would be the consequence? Why, that he would make himself responsible for all the acts done in virtue of that licence. Did their Lordships imagine that any Secretary of State would wish to be placed in so awkward and so responsible a position as would be thus occasioned? His noble and learned Friend had referred, among other cases, to the absurd pilgrimage of three respectable gentlemen of the Society of Friends to St. Petersburg, where they were received with the courtesy usual with the eminent personage at the head of that Government, and after some cajolery, and no doubt a considerable degree of private ridicule, were dismissed and returned to this country with nothing but their labour for their pains. Were they to apply the measure to such an enterprise as this? He was old enough to recollect acts of an extremely reprehensible character with regard to certain societies in this country, whose representatives appeared at the bar of the French Convention, uttering many sentiments and opinions of a most mischievous nature; but it was not thought necessary by the eminent statesmen of that day to pass any permanent law to deal with such cases. They fell into oblivion, and, by degrees, died away and were forgotten; and, he asked, was it necessary at this time of day to interfere with transactions of the description to which he had alluded? Had they occasioned any real mischief? But the noble and learned Lord had cited as an authority in favour of the measure, the case of an Act which was passed in the United States so far back as 1791. He (Lord Lyndhurst) knew from experience the skill of the Legislature of the United States, and he had asked his noble and learned Friend to favour him with a copy of that Act, which he had obligingly done; but he could not find the slightest resemblance between that law and the present measure. It was passed, as his noble and learned Friend had said, at the time when the elder Adams, a distinguished lawyer, was President, and when Jefferson was Vice President of the United States. The provisions of that Act were simply these—namely, that if any citizen of the United States, whether residing in them or out of them, "should have any intercourse with a foreign Government with intent to influence any negotiations then depending between the two Governments, or with an intent to defeat any measure of the Government, he shall be deemed to be guilty of misdemeanor." If his noble and learned Friend had introduced a measure of a similar nature to this, he (Lord Lyndhurst) did not know that he should have made any objection to it. Such a measure might be necessary, as in the supposed case where Mr. Fox was charged with interfering in negotiations with Russia, with a view to influence them and prevent their completion. That charge against Mr. Fox has been more than once most satisfactorily refuted; but, if it had been true, what more grave offence could have been com- mitted? It was to offences of this description that the Act of the United States had reference, and that measure bore no resemblance whatever to the Bill of his noble and learned Friend. So conscious, indeed, was his noble and learned Friend of the defects of his measure, that in the course of his address he entreated their Lordships to pass this Bill, on the understanding that it should go to a Select Committee, in order that such objections as had been pointed out might be obviated. He had said he entertained doubts respecting the measure of his noble and learned Friend; the ground of those doubts he had now stated to the House for their consideration. In his opinion, this was a subject upon which if legislation was necessary, it ought to be conducted by the Government, and he was ready to leave it in their hands. If they thought the Bill should be read a second time on the complete understanding and promise of his noble and learned Friend that it should be contracted in its operation and extent, he should not oppose it. He had felt it his duty to make these observations, and he left the matter entirely in the hands of their Lordships. He saw that the noble Earl to whom he had alluded (the Earl of Shaftesbury) was now present; he did not know whether he accompanied the deputation; but, if he did not, be sanctioned it, and he (Lord Lyndhurst) wished to know what was his opinion as to its effect.

THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURY

said, he was appointed a member of the deputation, but was not able to fulfil the duties; but he was chairman of the committee. He believed he might say that the representations of that deputation had a very material effect upon the Government of the Grand Duke of Tuscany, and upon the minds of the great mass of the people of Italy at large. He did not think that the present measure, taking it altogether, was a useful one, or that the cases that had been cited by his noble and learned Friend were of sufficient importance to justify it; for, although they might be very strong, at the same time no very serious consequences resulted from them; and he asked the House whether greater mischief might not have resulted from punishing those three gentlemen, who, at all events, acted up to their conscientious convictions? Supposing the three gentlemen of the Society of Friends, who cer- tainly went out under circumstances that the House must almost wonder at their heroism in at the time seeking an interview with the Emperor of Russia, had been tried for misdemeanor and were now languishing in prison, would that have been a desirable thing? He must say that there were in the Bill now proposed provisions for limiting what he considered the inherent right of every Englishman. By the present measure we were not to be allowed to address any foreign Government on account of any act done by that Government. It did not confine itself to affairs between the English Government and any other Government—it did not say with respect to any public negotiation; but it prohibited an Englishman from interposing in any way whatever with respect to the act of any independent nation. Let them take the case of the Madiai. A deputation on behalf of the Madiai, with Lord Roden at its head, left this country for the purpose of representing the Protestant Alliance at Florence, and, through the Protestant Alliance, a very large proportion of the Protestants of England. They went only for the purpose of using intervention with the Grand Duke of Tuscany, and of praying him to be good enough to remove the pressure of the law from the poor creatures who had been thrown into prison simply because they had been detected reading the Bible. He held that in such a case every Protestant Englishman had a right to interfere with a foreign Government on behalf of his co-religionists, and in his opinion that right could not be taken away from him, except by an act of intolerable tyranny. He contended that, if a Government chose to oppress any of its Protestant subjects, they had the right of interposing their private representation to induce it to remove the oppression under which their suffering co-religionists laboured. He believed this Bill, if it were passed into a law, would make it utterly impossible for any interference of the kind to take place without the previous consent of the Secretary of State. That consent he would not submit to ask if he felt it his duty before God and man to interpose with the Sovereign of a foreign country on behalf of some co-religionist suffering unjustly; he would not go to the Secretary of State and say, "Will you give me permission to interpose?" nor would he go to the Court of that Potentate and ask permission of our representative there. There were other cases which had occurred in his time, in which it was not necessary to mention the names of the parties; but it had been his duty in two several instances to address, in one case, the Prime Minister of a foreign country on behalf of a co-religionist, requesting him to be good enough to relieve the law which pressed so heavily on their rights and privileges; and it had been his duty to communicate in another instance with a crowned head, preferring the same prayer, and imploring the Sovereign to recollect the rights of Christians, and relieve the pressure of the law which deprived them of their just rights respecting the profession of their faith. In those instances, had this act been law, either he should have been prevented from interfering, or, if he had persisted in doing so, he should have committed an offence, and have exposed himself to the penalties provided by the measure. He considered this Bill a great infringement of their Christian rights and privileges, and, with all due respect to his noble and learned Friend, he must say that in defence of Protestant rights and the rights and feelings of Englishmen, he should oppose it by all the means in his power.

THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGH

said, his noble Friend who spoke last had certainly a fair right to interfere on behalf of his co-religionists. He, however, hoped that the noble Earl would be willing to grant the same right to members of other creeds that he claimed for himself. He apprehended that such a right belonged equally to the Greek as to the Protestant, and that the Greeks in Russia or any other country would have an equal right to interfere with the Turkish Government on behalf of the Greek Christians the subjects of the Sultan. A considerable amount of practical inconvenience might arise from extending these Protestant natural rights to the Greeks. He thought it right to notice the inconvenient extent to which the principle advocated by the noble Earl might be carried, without meaning to take part in the discussion upon the Bill itself.

THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURY

I might have used too strong a word when I said we had a right to interfere. What I meant was, that I thought we had a right of private solicitation, and a right of prayer. In my opinion, every Greek in the Russian dominions would have a perfect right to communicate, personally if he could, or by letter if he could not, with the Sultan, in order to induce him to respect the rights of conscience and give full religious liberty to his Greek subjects.

THE BISHOP OF OXFORD

said, he entirely agreed with what had fallen from the noble Earl who spoke last (the Earl of Shaftesbury) upon the subject, and he wished to call their Lordships' attention to a particular instance in which it seemed to him that this abridgment of the liberty of Englishmen would have greatly injured the cause of civilisation and humanity; and that was at the time when representations with a view to do away with the slave trade, and solicitations on behalf of the oppressed African race, were made to foreign States by persons who took an interest in the abolition of slavery. The noble Earl had said he would not submit to ask the leave of the Secretary of State before he made such representations as he contemplated to foreign Powers. Changing very slightly the form of the noble Earl's words, he would at once adopt them; for it seemed to him that it was not so much that one would not submit to ask such a permission of the Secretary of State, as that it was taking away a remarkably useful and convenient mode in which such representations might be made in an unofficial manner. There might be a great many occasions for representations such as those alluded to by the noble Earl in which it would be singularly inconvenient for the Government of the country to come forward and make a specific Government representation, or to give other parties permission to make it—for it might be said that such a representation was a national one because the Government had adopted it. But such representation might be made most usefully and efficiently by parties who did not undertake to represent the English nation, but who professed to represent parties entertaining strong opinions, and who, having strong Christian sympathies with others, might desire to express that sympathy, and might desire in an unauthorised and unofficial manner to address the Sovereign of another State, in behalf of the objects of their sympathies.

LORD BEAUMONT

had listened with great attention to the noble and learned Lord who had brought in the Bill, in order that he might have the pleasure of supporting it; but the speech of his noble and learned Friend, instead of removing his objections, had only tended to confirm them. In order to make out his case he thought the noble and learned Lord was bound, in the first place, to state what were the evils which he intended to remove, and to illustrate those evils by instances; but although he went over numerous instances, from the time of the Empress Catherine down to the recent journey of Quakers to St. Petersburg, he did not point out the evil resulting from one single case. On the contrary, the noble and learned Lord left an impression on his (Lord Beaumont's) mind, that in not one single instance of these violations of propriety—of these indications and assumptions of power on the part of individuals professing to represent the opinions of the masses, had he shown the result to have been injurious to the country. Far from that, he (Lord Beaumont) believed that, in every instance, it only brought ridicule upon the individuals engaged, and, instead of doing harm, actually did good, inasmuch as it showed up and exposed the absurdity of the parties who assumed the power of representing any influential parties in this country. If his noble and learned Friend had shown that, in consequence of any of these interferences, great negotiations had been prevented, or great arrangements between nations had been interrupted, or that any evil had resulted from such proceedings, then he (Lord Beaumont) should say there was some ground for legislating, and he might have been induced to entertain the Bill with favour. What was the next course taken by the noble and learned Lord? He (Lord Campbell) stated in the next case that this Bill might be supposed to interfere with what was useful. The noble and learned Lord seemed himself to be fully aware of the great advantages which resulted from individuals, representing certain influential parties in this country, having, in their private capacity, intercourse and communication with sovereigns and potentates abroad. The case of the Greeks had been suggested. Now he (Lord Beaumont) went the full length of saying, that every Greek had a right to appeal to the Sultan in regard to any matter which affected his individual feelings; and that every Mahomedan possessed a similar right to appeal to the English Government in behalf of every body of Mahomedans who were under our sway in Asia. The noble and learned Lord appeared to be fully conscious of the objections which would be urged against his measure, and how did he meet those objections? By introducing something which on the face of it was most objectionable—a clause giving power to the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to authorise persons to enter upon such interference. Why, if the Secretary of State gave his signature to every deputation on behalf of the Madiai or other persecuted people in other countries—and there were persecutions of Roman Catholics in Sweden, as well as persecutions of Protestants in Italy—he would take the whole responsibility on himself, and immediately make the individuals whom he authorised the representatives of this country, and they would then stand in a totally different position to what they would otherwise have done. What would be the great convenience of that? When those persons stood in that authorised position, they would naturally bring the Government into difficulties, at the same time that they would lose much of their own individual influence. It was clear that they would make their communications more freely, and with less reserve, and with, perhaps, a better chance of a happy result, in their unauthorised capacity, than if they had obtained the formal sanction of the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. Instead of the Bill carrying out, as alleged, the law of nations, it actually violated that law. Another objection raised to the Bill, in which he perfectly concurred, related to communications between members of the Roman Catholic Church and the Pope of Rome. If the Romish religion was to be conducted in its full force in England, it was absolutely necessary to keep up a constant communication with that foreign Potentate. But the noble and learned Lord said he did not intend to interfere with that kind of communication; and, if so, he must make so large an exception as to render the Bill useless. He could not pretend to assert that the Bill would not apply to matters of religion connected with the Roman Catholics, because the religious and political element was so mixed up at Rome, that he (Lord Beaumont) defied any one to separate the two. If such a Bill as the present had been in operation some time ago, the noble and learned Lord himself would have been one of the greatest offenders, because he was honoured with a long interview with another Sovereign, who not only wore one but three crowns, and with whom he entered into a long conversation on all the great questions of the day—education, Queen's colleges, and Heaven knows what else. That was no doubt an interview between a private individual and a foreign Potentate, from which great advantages were derived, that individual representing so large a portion of the legal body in this country; but if this Bill had been then in operation, he did not see how such an advantage could have been conferred on that Potentate.

THE EARL OF ABERDEEN

said, that, although he had a great respect for the noble and learned Lord who had moved the second reading of this Bill, and should be most unwilling to vote against the second reading, he thought that the noble and learned Lord must perceive that objections so weighty and so numerous had been stated against his measure that it was quite impossible that it could pass without very great and extensive alterations. His noble and learned friend opposite (Lord Lyndhurst) had suggested that the Bill should be read a second time, and then that it be referred to a Select Committee, with the view to making such alterations in it as may be agreed upon. [Lord LYNDHURST said, it was not his suggestion; it was the noble and learned Lord who introduced the measure who made that proposition.] He should be excessively unwilling, for the respect he had for his noble and learned Friend (Lord Campbell), to object to the second reading; but, at the same time, he thought that the objections which had been taken to his measure were such as to raise difficulties in the way of removing the evils complained of, even if the Bill were referred to a Select Committee. If, however, his noble and learned Friend persevered in his wish to read the Bill a second time, upon the clear understanding that these alterations, so extensive and so fundamental, should be assented to before a Select Committee, he would not oppose the second reading. But if he might venture, without offence or without presumption, to recommend any course to his noble and learned Friend—seeing that the prospect of effecting his end was so small—he would recommend him not to persevere in the second reading of the Bill.

THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDE

joined in the recommendation of the withdrawal of the Bill. The noble and learned Lord who introduced it had mentioned a ridiculous instance, in which a deputation from the City of London, headed by the then Lord Mayor, went to the illustrious Prince who was now the Emperor of the French; but he forgot to mention that, at the same time, there was a deputation to Paris for a very different object—the accomplishment of a vast design, which would be of the greatest use to the commerce of the whole world. He meant an effective passage across the Isthmus of Panama. That was a deputation, headed by Sir Charles Forbes and other remarkable men —men remarkable in skill, science, and industry—from this and other countries in Europe; but that deputation came distinctly under the present Bill, for the object of the parties was to apply for certain acts to be done by the French Government. He thought that no obstacle should be interposed to negotiations with, or representations to, foreign Governments for purposes of that description. The noble and learned Lord said he did not intend to impose any check on the liberty of the subject; but he had failed to show any single case of grievance which rendered the Bill necessary. Take the most recent case —Mr. Smith O'Brien's deputation to Lamartine. It was a deputation of a most mischievous nature unquestionably; but the only result of it was, to dispel the idea that Ireland could obtain any assistance from any respectable Government in France on behalf of such a dangerous project as was then contemplated.

LORD BROUGHAM

said, he was under the impression that many of their Lordships had not attended to the provisions of this Bill. Communication with a potentate, such as a conference of his noble and learned Friend with the Pope, did not come under the operation of the measure. It was only when persons professed to represent persons or bodies of persons in this country, and went as their representatives to a foreign Prince, that they came under the provisions of the Bill. He would recommend his noble and learned Friend to take into consideration the many difficulties that had been started. It was quite certain that very considerable changes must be made in the Bill; for example, it would be necessary to provide that the owners of property should not be liable on account of representations to foreign Governments relative to property. The joint owners of a vessel, for example, which might be seized by the act of a foreign Government, ought not to be prevented from making any representations to such Government. It might be said that they might write home and obtain the warrant of the Secretary of State; but valuable time would be lost by such a delay, where immediate representation would be most necessary. He thought, besides, that an authorisation of that kind would somewhat commit the Government to the matter in discussion, and such a step ought to be avoided, and the consequence would be, that in ninety-nine cases out of one hundred the Secretary of State would refuse to interfere. At the next stage his noble and learned Friend might be able to suggest remedies for these difficulties. With respect to the objections urged by the noble Earl (the Earl of Shaftesbury), he was one of those who would rather see representations upon so delicate and exciting a matter as religion in the hands of the Government than in the hands of individuals. In dealing with matters so exciting and so delicate as those involving religious feeling, he thought it much more expedient to let them pass through the regular and constitutional channel.

LORD CAMPBELL

agreed with his noble and learned Friend (Lord Brougham) that several noble Lords who had spoken on the subject of this Bill had not very studiously considered the phrases in which it was couched. The principle of the Bill was to prevent unauthorised communications between English subjects, who pretended to represent the English nation, or a portion of it, with foreign Governments, respecting political and national affairs. He wished to go no further than this; and, if this principle were not carried out in the Bill, he was perfectly willing to agree to any alterations which should have that effect. The conference which he had had with a foreign Potentate was perfectly innocent. His noble Friend (Lord Beaumont) was right in saying that he had had a long conference with His Holiness the Pope. He did discuss with the Pope a number of political topics, and he most certainly hoped with some success, because he had convinced the Pope that he had been misinformed respecting what were called the "Godless Colleges;" and that the Government had most anxiously provided in them for the integrity of the Roman Catholic faith, and for the morals and creed of the Roman Catholic pupils who were to be instructed there. He believed that some good had arisen from that interview; but was that an interference with the Government? And would it have been affected by this Bill? Did he go to Rome as a deputation from persons in England? No; he went as a simple individual—as an English traveller; nor was there a line or a word in the Bill that had a tendency to check such communications. A case such as that of the seizure of a vessel would not come under the Bill, because that was not a "national affair." In the United States law there was a provision which he had no objection to follow in its very words, that the Bill should not extend to the private concerns of the citizens of the United States. This Bill would be substantially the same as the United States law, both in title and in matter, and by a small alteration might be reduced to that to which his noble and learned Friend (Lord Lyndhurst) agreed. Their Lordships had heard of the right which all individuals were said to have to interfere with the national affairs of another country, and to represent any number of persons in this country in deputations, relative to the treatment by a foreign Government of its own subjects. He was alarmed when he heard such doctrines of interference laid down, because he thought they had a very dangerous tendency to disturb the peace of the world. He hoped their Lordships would agree to read the Bill a second time, and then refer it to a Select Committee, with the understanding that it should be so re-formed as to carry out the principle on which it had been based; and in this way his object would be attained, and the measure moulded into an entirely unobjectionable shape. He trusted their Lordships would decline to say that nothing should be done to put a stop to the unauthorised communications complained of, and he hoped the Bill would not share the fate of so many which had been introduced this year, and had already come to an untimely end.

On Question, Resolved in the affirmative; Bill read 2a accordingly, and referred to a Select Committee.

House adjourned to Thursday next.