Lords Sitting of 9 July 1860

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1a Local Taxation Returns.
2a Naval Discipline.

ITALY.—EXPLANATION.
THE MARQUESS OF NORMANBYsaid, he wished to call the attention of his noble and learned Friend (Lord Brougham) to the impression that was made, adverse to some highly respectable persons, friends of his own, by the disparaging tone in which his noble and learned Friend spoke the other evening of some correspondence that had been addressed to him by certain gentlemen in Florence. How did that correspondence originate, and what was its nature? It was conveyed to him by persons in whom he could place as much reliance as he could in any one in this House or in his noble and learned Friend himself, and it related to the acts and proceedings of the Provisional Government in Tuscany—a Provisional Government which was supported and nursed mainly by the action of the noble Lord the Secretary for Foreign Affairs. That Government had gagged the press so that not one word was allowed to appear in public except what was favourable to the acts of Baron Ricasoli, and therefore his correspondents were compelled to transmit their statements to him in order that they might be read in the House of Lords. But now the Provisional Government was at an end; and what had since happened? In a newspaper, which had been started by the most eminent men in Florence within the last six weeks, all the statements of his correspondents with regard to the misdeeds, the duplicity, the tyranny of the Provisional Government were fully substantiated. Had the Government denied the facts? On the contrary, after a vain attempt to suppress the paper, they bought up the printer and the other printers in the town to refuse to print it. But here, too, he

1609
was glad to say they failed; so that the newspaper which contained this exposé of the deeds of the Provisional Government, after having been suspended for ten days, was now in such credit that it was published daily instead of, as at first, three times a week. The result, then, of the discredit which had been attached to the statements of his correspondents was that they were substantiated in a newspaper published by some of the first men in Florence. He might also state that he had foreseen, and had warned the House from the beginning, that the only result of our interference in Tuscan affairs would be the strengthening of the Mazzini party. That party was now growing stronger and bolder than ever, and the last account he had received from Florence was that no fewer than three barricade committees had been formed in that town. Discredit had also been thrown on some statements he made on the authority of the French newspapers with respect to atrocities committed in Sicily; but these statements were confirmed the day after he made them by the noble Lord the Secretary for Foreign Affairs, though he said the acts were not traced to General Garibaldi. Now, he never said that these outrages were the acts of the Government or that they were the acts of persons acting under the Government. But what he said, and what he would repeat was, that when the regular Government was suspended, then every person acting at all was acting under the authority of General Garibaldi; and he did not think when a person assumed responsibility such as General Garibaldi had done, and great atrocities were committed, it was enough to say that the reports of the British Admiral on the station were to the effect that Garibaldi was perfectly humane and moderate. He never meant to dispute that, for he knew nothing on the subject, but Garibaldi ought not to put himself in a situation of such responsibility if he could not prevent the crimes that were committed by those under him. It was unnecessary to assure his noble and learned Friend that he did not mean to bring any charge against him, but he thought this explanation was due to those respectable persons who had corresponded with him, and whose statements, though they had been discredited at first, were now so completely substantiated.
LORD BROUGHAM:—I am sure my noble Friend and the House will acquit me in anything which I said from intend-
1610
ing to cast even the slightest imputation on my noble Friend himself. Correspondence undoubtedly means letters received as well as sent; and when I described the very small value which I attached to the correspondence of my noble Friend I meant letters which he had received, and not letters which he had sent. Of those I had no means of judging, except from my entire confidence in my noble Friend, and whatever statements were conveyed in those I am quite certain would be accurate. The value which I attached to the letters containing the details referred to by the noble Marquess was certainly of the very smallest, and nothing which has now fallen from my noble Friend has inclined me to raise that estimate. My information from Florence is diametrically opposed to that of my noble Friend—though I have no doubt whatever that he will attach as little value to my correspondence as I have attached to his. I believe that the Government of Florence is not subject to the imputations cast upon it by the correspondents of my noble Friend, but that it is perfectly free from those charges. As to that celebrated individual—not more celebrated than he deserves—General Garibaldi, I am exceedingly glad indeed to hear that my noble Friend does not at all impute to him those excesses which he says have been committed in the course of the revolutionary proceedings which have taken place in Sicily. However, I did not quite so understand my noble Friend on a former occasion, and to-night I thought that, if he did not actually quite charge these excesses upon General Garibaldi, he more than insinuated that he is answerable for them. I suppose my noble Friend means that a man who is in supreme power is answerable for everything which is done during his dictatorship; but in no other sense can General Garibaldi be answerable for any of those offences to which reference has been made. My noble Friend seems to be under the impression that the Secretary of State admitted those excesses the other night in the other House of Parliament, and also that General Garibaldi had something to do with them; but my belief is that he peremptorily denied it, as I do now upon his authority and upon the authority of all others who have any knowledge of the matter. There is no cause known in history which has met with more universal acceptance than the cause of the Sicilians, with General Garibaldi at their head, against the tyrant of Sicily and his

1611
emissaries, whether in the shape of sbirri or soldiers—the soldiers, I verily believe, but for a season about to remain in allegiance to him. I am told there is a constitution about to be imposed, not upon Sicily, for that is out of the question, but upon Naples; in my firm belief, and in my entire and hearty hope and prayer, such constitution will utterly fail to save that detestable tyranny.
THE MARQUESS OF NORMANBYhad never said that General Garibaldi was personally answerable for the outrages that had been committed. What he did say, and what he now repeated, was, that when a man, in violation of the law of nations, assumed absolute power, either in Sicily or elsewhere, he rendered himself responsible for all the outrages that were committed. The noble Lord, the Secretary for Foreign Affairs, did not trace those outrages to General Garibaldi personally; but he did not deny that outrages had been committed. One word more as to his correspondents. The noble and learned Lord said, that what he had heard made no difference in the value he imputed to these statements. What, no difference! when he informed him that every word in those statements had been confirmed and repeated in a Liberal newspaper published in Florence? In 1848 his noble and learned Friend spoke strongly against the revotionary spirit; and the other night his noble and learned Friend stated that he did not retract or change one word of what he then said. All he had to say was, that if his noble and learned Friend's opinions were not changed, he had greatly changed his mode of giving expression to them.
LORD BROUGHAMwished to add one word only with regard to General Garibaldi. His noble Friend said that he had proceeded in violation of the law of nations to liberate his fellow-subjects.
THE MARQUESS OF NORMANBY: Not his fellow-subjects.
LORD BROUGHAM: His countrymen, then.
THE MARQUESS OF NORMANBY: Why his countrymen?
LORD BROUGHAM: Because he is an Italian. He could only say that if the law of nations was to be enforced to the perpetual subjugation and misery of nations, the sooner they had as little as possible of the law of nations the better.
LORD WODEHOUSEwished to call attention to one phrase made use of by the noble Marquess, that the noble Lord, the
1612
Foreign Secretary, in the other House, said he could not trace the outrages committed in Sicily to General Garibaldi. That was a phrase which would imply that his noble Friend had a suspicion of General Garibaldi's connivance in those outrages, though there was not sufficient evidence of the fact. His noble Friend's expressions, however, went much further than a denial of any proof that General Garibaldi had connived at those excesses. Not only was there no connivance, but he had done his utmost to prevent them; and by the last intelligence, it appeared that he had recourse to severe measures for that purpose. But when a man was placed in the position of General Garibaldi it was not surprising that he should not be able to prevent the commission of everything of which he disapproved. He certainly deserved the highest credit for the generosity and moderation which he had displayed. It must not be forgotten, too, that if some outrages had been committed in the excitement of a revolution, outrages had been previously committed by the Royal troops, which were perfectly well known to all the world, and which were unsurpassed by anything of which the oppressed people of Sicily had been guilty.

NAVAL DISCIPLINE BILL.
SECOND READING.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE DUKE OF SOMERSET,in moving the second reading of the Bill to amend the laws relating to the government of the Navy, said that it was nearly a century since the Act was brought in which at present governed the discipline of the navy, and the changes of the law and the progress of public opinion with regard to the service, rendered it very desirable that Amendments should be introduced and the law revised. Neither offences nor punishments were clearly defined. A paper which was in their Lordships' hands showed the spirit in which it was intended by this Bill to deal with the subject. It was proposed to deal with it on principles of justice and humanity, without relaxing in any degree the discipline of the navy. The men would know what punishments they incurred, and that the object was to keep good order among themselves, without which they could have no comfort or safety on board ship. With an ill-disciplined crew, the insubordinate and disorderly shirked

1613
work, and, as the work must be done, it fell upon the orderly and subordinate. It was, therefore, in the interest of the orderly men that the disorderly should be punished. It was proposed to diminish the almost universal punishment of death which stood in the old code. It was never inflicted in a great many cases, and it was desirable the men should know what in those cases their punishment really would be. He had received a great many suggestions from officers who were competent to form a sound opinion upon several of the details, some of which he intended to adopt. After the second reading he should propose to go into Committee pro formâ, in order to introduce those Amendments, and the Bill might be debated and re-considered on going again into Committee on a future day. There were many reasons why it was desirable to pass the Bill this year. They had heard with regret of disturbances in vessels both at home and abroad, and he was told that one great fault of the present law was that the petty officers, who stood between the officers and seamen, and on whom good discipline in great measure depended, though protected on board ship, were not protected sufficiently on shore. They were often injured and insulted on shore by the men, whose conduct they had found fault with on board ship. The Bill, therefore, contained a clause by which martial law would be extended to protect the petty officers on shore, as well as on board ship. The continuance of corporal punishment in the navy was a question which he had considered very carefully, and had heard fully and fairly discussed among naval officers. The conclusion at which he had arrived was, that to transfer the power of inflicting corporal punishment from the captain to a court-martial would be to diminish the authority of the captain and to endanger the discipline of the service. The nearest approach which could safely be made to such a system was to provide—as was done in the present Bill—that, except in the case of open mutiny, no man should be subjected to corporal punishment by the commanding officer until the case had been inquired into and reported upon by one or more officers appointed by the commander. By that means the responsibility would be to a certain extent divided between the captain and one or more of his subordinates. He proposed that arrangement rather for the protection of the captain than of the men, as it would re-
1614
lieve him of that personal odium which he was at present apt to incur if he inflicted corporal punishment. Their Lordships were, no doubt, aware that seamen were now grouped in two classes, and that first-class men were not liable to corporal punishment at all till they had been reduced to the second class. Every precaution, therefore, had been taken to place corporal punishment on a safe footing. He was certainly not prepared to give up this mode of punishment, as certain persons who called themselves the "friends of the sailor" demanded. He believed that its abolition would be a positive misfortune to the well-behaved men, and would lead to great inconvenience at sea, as confinement would be almost the only substitute.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.
THE EARL OF HARDWICKEagreed with the noble Duke as to the importance of the subject; but he was of opinion that the discipline of the navy was equally, if not more, dependent on the character and conduct of the officers in command than upon the code of laws under which they acted. Informing an opinion on this question, the public had not made sufficient allowance for the peculiarities of the naval service, and had been too prone to consider the Articles of War on the same ground as the general law of the land. The effect of popular opinion acting on the successive Boards of Admiralty had been to render it extremely difficult for officers to carry out the naval code of laws and to maintain the discipline of the service; and that influence could only be met by the establishment of a detailed system of discipline, and by the personal example of commanding officers in sharing the same privations and restrictions as their men. Let the officers show that they were determined to maintain discipline; but at the same time let them make it apparent that they themselves took their share of that discipline. He owned that the language of the existing Act of Parliament, which had been in force for a hundred years, was too general and comprehensive, and that it was desirable that the particular offence and the punishment attached should be clearly defined. He had, therefore, no objection to the measure of the noble Duke as a whole, although there were points in which it I might be improved. He highly approved the manner in which the noble Duke proposed to deal with the distinction which prevailed between offences committed on shore and on board of ships. The exemp-

1615
tions from martial law which a seaman at present enjoyed when he quitted his ship certainly tended to unsettle him on his return on board, and not unfrequently petty officers who attempted to enforce very strict discipline were assaulted by the men when on shore. A marine who misconducted himself on shore was liable to the same punishment as on board. Not so the seaman, who was amenable only to the civil law for his conduct on shore. One result of this was, a threat to a petty officer to retort upon him when he landed has the effect of deterring him from discharging his duty. The Bill gave power to the Lords of the Admiralty to suspend, annul, or modify any sentence passed on any person subject to the Act, except the sentence of death, which could only be remitted by Her Majesty. He objected to any proposal to constitute the Lords of the Admiralty an appellant court. The naval officers who composed a court-martial were generally quite as good judges as the Lords of the Admiralty, if not better. An appeal from a court-martial was always open to the Crown, and, although he wished to see an appellate jurisdiction established, it ought to be entrusted, he thought, to men learned in the law, and not to the Admiralty. Great objections were properly entertained to the 15th section of the 49th clause, which set up within the walls of the ship a court for the judgment of offences. The clause said:—
"Except in case of open mutiny no man shall be sentenced by the commanding officer to corporal punishment until his offence has been inquired into by one or more officers appointed by such commanding officer, and the guilt or innocence of the prisoner reported to such commanding officer."
He objected to this clause, thinking it desirable to retain in the hands of the captain the sole power, conduct, and management of the ship from first to last, together with the full responsibility of such command. The captain might himself see an offence committed, and yet under this clause he would be unable to punish the offender until his guilt had been inquired into by these officers. Such a regulation would diminish and injure the authority of the captain, and have a prejudicial influence upon the discipline of the ship. At present an interval of forty-eight hours elapsed between the sentence of corporal punishment and its infliction, so that ample time existed for inquiry and reconsideration. He trusted that the House
1616
would not agree to this inquiry by junior officers; there were several clauses in the Bill which required the most careful consideration, either before a Select Committee or in Committee of the Whole House.
LORD COLCHESTERsaid, this Bill proposed to remodel the whole law upon this subject. He did not object to many of the alterations; indeed he approved of some of them being made, but others would require some notice in Committee. In his opinion it was absolutely necessary, for the good of the ship, that the captain should have complete command over all persons in the ship.
VISCOUNT MELVILLEobjected to that part of the Bill by which an officer might be dismissed the service for what was called an "error of judgment." He thought this a very severe penalty.
THE DUKE OF SOMERSETwould consider the various suggestions that had been made, with a view to their adoption in Committee if they were deemed advisable. If the Bill was sent to a Select Committee upstairs, and noble Lords attended to it for a day or two, he had no doubt that it might be considerably improved.
Motion agreed to: Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the whole House on Thursday next.

LAW AND EQUITY BILL.

  COMMITTEE.
  House in Committee (according to Order).
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, that to his great regret the Select Committee to which this Bill was referred had struck out several most valuable clauses, but he hoped the House might before long be induced to adopt them. The Bill as it stood still contained important amendments of the law which he believed would be found beneficial in practice, and he therefore submitted it to the favourable consideration of their Lordships. Two clauses had been omitted by mistake, and he believed there was no objection to their introduction.
  LORD BROUGHAMshared in the regret expressed by his noble and learned Friend at the decision which had been arrived at by the Select Committee. He hoped that next year, his noble Friends who had overpowered the Lord Chancellor and himself in the Committee would come to, he would not say a wiser, but a different opinion.
  LORD CHELMSFORDdissented from the view taken by the noble and learned Lords who had just addressed the Committee. He believed that the Bill had been much improved by the omission of the clauses referred to; those which remained would doubtless prove exceedingly useful.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, the supporters of the Bill in its original shape had been only compelled to yield to what lawyers called the vis major, which could not be resisted.
  Amendments made. The Report thereof to be received To-morrow.
  House adjourned at Seven o'clock, till To-morrow Half-past Ten o'clock.