§ THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGHwished to put a question to the noble Duke the First Lord of the Admiralty. Very alarming reports were in circulation relative to the state of affairs in Naples. Those reports might be extremely exaggerated; but undoubtedly it was quite impossible that the state of things repre- 705 sented to be existing there could long continue. Among other things, the public were told that there was a considerable number of Her Majesty's ships in the Bay of Naples. Assuming these statements to be true, he wished to ask the noble Duke, Whether any special instructions had been given to the officers in command of those ships as to what their conduct should be in the event of individuals being driven by a sense of personal danger to claim their protection?
§ THE DUKE OF SOMERSETsaid, there could be no doubt that the state of affairs in Naples was lamentable. No special instructions, however, bad been given to the officers of British ships which were stationed there for the protection of British residents and of British property. The rule with regard to reception on board Her Majesty's ships of persons in personal danger was not that protection would be afforded to persons flying from justice or desiring to escape the sentence of a court of law; but it had always, he believed, been held that the British flag did afford protection to any refugee flying for safety of life in any country, on account of his political opinions, either from the tyranny of Monarchs or the violence of a mob. Beyond that, officers receiving refugees on board their ships would, of course, not allow them while they were on board their ships to hold communication with their partizans on shore, but would simply give them that hospitality which humanity demanded and justified.
§ THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGHsaid, he was perfectly satisfied with the assurance of the noble Duke as he understood it—that the action of British officers should be confined to the performance of the duties of common humanity.
§ LORD REDESDALESurely what the noble Duke has said requires explanation. Does he mean to say that if a man is flying from high treason, he is to be protected on board a British ship, supposing he should be lucky enough to escape thither? Should we recognize such a doctrine, if a person charged with high treason were to take refuge on board a French ship of war lying in one of our harbours? Let us take care, my Lords, that we do not lay down doctrines because we are strong and Naples is weak. Let us take care that, what ever principles we lay down as to Naples, we should be able to assert and to enforce against all the world, and to maintain as to French harbours as well as Neapolitan.
§ THE EARL OF MALMESBURYwould remind his noble Friend the First Lord of the Admiralty that a British officer might be placed in a very awkward position if he was called upon to judge as to the particular nature of the prosecution from which an individual might be trying to escape. A man might be escaping from political prosecution, or from a prosecution instituted in an ordinary court of justice by the constituted authorities. How was the British officer to know what was the case? A man came alongside a British ship in a boat with a pitiful story, and it would often be impossible for the commanding officer to know whether the individual was flying from such a prosecution as that to which the noble Duke alluded, or from one of quite another kind. He was certain we should not permit such a doctrine to be carried out in our ports.
§ THE DUKE OF SOMERSETI laid down no principle; I confined myself entirely to what had been the practice of former years, and I took the precaution of looking back to the records of the Admiralty. If there is a revolution, and refugees of one party or the other come on board, they have been often received, though the officers, anxious to relieve themselves from responsibility, take the earliest opportunity of sending them away to a place of safety. That has been the practice as to political offenders. It has been followed repeatedly and in many instances. I limited myself entirely to what had been the practice. I did not pronounce any opinion as to what I thought ought to be the course pursued. As to whether a refugee is flying from political persecution or ordinary justice, our officers must judge for themselves in each case, consulting Her Majesty's Ambassador or Consul on the spot, on whose advice they will act.
§ THE EARL OF DERBYMy Lords, I believe that no one doubts that this practice of giving hospitality to political refugees ought to be limited to periods of civil convulsion and revolutionary violence, and is not applicable to ordinary times, even although there may be some degree of disturbance. And I have not yet heard that there is any serious difference between the Government of Naples and the great mass of the people. I may disapprove of the system of Government pursued, but that is a question purely between the Government and its own subjects, and there is nothing at present which indicates a state of things in which alone British naval officers have 707 a right to interpose. I hope, therefore, that the Government are prepared to lay this limitation on the principles they have laid down—that the interference of British officers ought to be limited to times of civil convulsion and revolutionary violence, and that they ought not to interpose under ordinary circumstances.
§ EARL GREYMy Lords, I understood the noble Duke to say that no special instructions had been issued to officers in command of ships. My Lords, I think that is quite right. It is impossible to foresee the circumstances that may arise, or to define beforehand in what cases protection should be given. It was one of the most difficult questions that a Government or an officer can have to decide. Undoubtedly there are some cases in which the very prospect of a refuge from the consequences of an unsuccessful attempt would have a tendency to encourage civil commotions. On the other hand, there may be cases of persecution and cruelty, in which common humanity may make it impossible to refuse shelter. It is difficult to define beforehand these cases; it is a matter for the exercise of a sound discretion; and looking at the past conduct of British officers, I think they have shown that they are well able to exercise such a discretion. I, for one, am content to leave the matter on the footing in which it at present stands, and hope nothing will be done to increase the difficulty of the position in which our officers are placed.