Sitting of 17 May 1860

MINUTES.
NEW WRIT ISSUED.—For Lymington, in the room of Sir John Rivett Carnae, baronet, Manor of Hempholme.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1° Landlord and Tenant (Ireland) No. 2.
2° Registration of Births, &c. (Ireland) (No. 2.); Registration of Births, &c. (Ireland).

THE WHITSUNTIDE HOLIDAYS.

  NOTICE.
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: Sir, I rise to make the Motion of which I have given notice, that the House at its rising adjourn to Monday next. If the House should agree to that Motion, I shall also move that the Committees have leave to sit, notwithstanding the adjournment of the House. Perhaps it may be convenient to the House at the same time to say that we mean to propose that the House shall adjourn on Friday in next week for the Whitsuntide holidays until Thursday in the week following. I think, also, it will be convenient that on Monday next I should move that the present arrangement with regard to Fridays and Thursdays should continue until the end of the present Session.
  Motion made and Question proposed—"That this House will, at the rising of the House this day, adjourn till Monday next.

THE PAPER DUTY.

  QUESTION.
  MR. STANSFELDsaid, he was desirous of taking that opportunity to put a question to the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, of which he had not the opportunity of giving notice, but which was one of considerable interest. That House had passed a Bill repealing the Excise duty upon paper, and a question had arisen as to

  1365
  the probable fate of that Bill in "another place." Her Majesty's Government bail entered into treaty arrangements with the Government of the Emperor of the French with reference to certain Customs duties, and amongst those duties was included the Customs duty upon paper. The interest of the question which he wished to put would be evident when he read its terms. He wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman—in case the other House of Parliament insists upon maintaining the Excise Duty upon Paper, what will be the position of the question of the Import Duty on Foreign Paper, of which it is intended to propose the repeal?

YEOMANRY HORSE DUTY.

  QUESTION.
  MR. PEACOCKEsaid, be wished to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer the question of which he had given notice—Whether the Horse Duty will be allowed to the Yeomanry this year?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I believe it is customary with most men, when they have to deal with two points, to begin with the easier. I will therefore answer the bon. Member for Maldon (Mr. Peacocke) by informing him that, although the Yeomanry are not to be called out this year, according to the intention of the Government, the regular directions have been given for allowing them the exemption from the duty on Yeomanry horses, which is, I think, in accordance with obvious justice.
  With respect to the question of the hon. Member for Halifax (Mr. Stansfeld), as it refers to a matter, which, of course, was under the consideration of the Government at the time the Treaty of Commerce with France was being negotiated, and as I learnt a few hours ago that the question was to be put, I sent for a copy of the Treaty with France, and I have no difficulty in giving an answer to the hon. Member, which embodies the opinion of the Government upon the effect of that article. I, of course, take no notice of those portions of the hon. Gentleman's questions, which appear to anticipate that I the Bill for the repeal of the duty will probably be lost in "another place;" since that is an occurrence which it is not for me to anticipate. The Seventh Article of the Treaty commences thus:—
  "Her Britannic Majesty promises to recommend to Parliament to admit into the United Kingdom merchandise imported from France, at
  1366
  a rate of duty equal to the Excise duty, which is or shall be imposed upon articles of the same description in the United Kingdom. At the same time, the duties chargeable on the importation of such merchandise, may be augmented by such a sum as shall be an equivalent for the expenses which the system of Excise may entail upon the British producer."
  Sir, I do not understand the hon. Member to ask me what might be, or might not be, the obligations of England, according to the opinion of Her Majesty's Government, in the event of the repeal of the Excise duty upon paper; and, therefore, that matter I leave for the present altogether aside. But, the hon. Gentleman asks me the opinion of the Government upon the obligations of England, under the Treaty with France, and under the terms of the Address, by which each House of Parliament has bound itself to give effect to the Treaty, in case the Excise duty on paper should not be repealed. Well, Sir, I apprehend that is a question, upon which no person who has examined the Article I have quoted, can possibly entertain a moment's doubt. At any rate, Her Majesty's Government consider it to be a matter beyond all doubt, and beyond all argument or necessity for construction or interpretation; inasmuch as the words appear to be as plain as possible and directly applicable to the case. If there be a duty of Excise on paper, then, subject to a single condition, it is the obvious duty of England towards France, and of the Houses of Parliament, under the terms of their Address, to reduce the Customs' duty on foreign paper to the precise level of the Excise duty on paper made at home. The single condition, to which I refer is, that contained in the latter portion of the clause, which specifies that the duty chargeable on the import of such merchandise may be augmented by such a sum as shall be an equivalent for the expense which the system of Excise may entail upon the British producer. And that principle has been applied, in the course of the present Session, in conformity with the general spirit and express terms of the Treaty, to the case of spirits, where the regulations of the Excise are so restrictive in various particulars, that they entail disadvantages upon the producer, that are capable of being stated in money. And a compensation for these disadvantages, in the shape of what the French call a surtaxe, has been added to the import duty chargeable on foreign spirits. But, with respect to the duty on paper, whatever may be its effect in restricting trade—which is

  1367
  not now a matter of discussion—no one has ever alleged that it imposes disadvantages on the manufacture of paper of such a definite nature, or such an amount as to be capable of being stated in the form of a certain rate of money. No claim of such a character has ever been made, or could be made. The inconveniencies, whatever they are, to the actual manufacturer of the article which we call paper, are not so appreciable or palpable, as to be capable of being reduced to such a form. There will, therefore, be no case for a surtaxe like that imposed in the case of spirits, and, therefore, I presume that in such a contingency as that to which the hon. Gentleman has adverted—and which again I decline to accept or to suppose possible—my hon. Friend the Member for Herts (Mr. Puller) will withdraw, or cease to persevere, with the Motion of which he has given notice.

ITALY. INSURRECTION IN SICILY.—SUBSCRIPTIONS FOR GARIBALDI.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  MR. HENNESSYsaid, he rose pursuant to notice to call the attention of the House to the Statement by the Solicitor General with reference to an advertisement in The Times newspaper for raising money to assist the insurgents in Sicily, and to call attention to a decision of the Court of Common Pleas as to the illegality of such a proceeding. He was induced to bring the question before the House in consequence of the reply given by the hon. and learned Solicitor General on the previous Friday night to a question put to him by an hon. Gentleman who was a supporter of the Government (Mr. Grant Duff). His (Mr. Hennessy's) opinion as to the state of the law might be of little weight, but the opinion of the hon. and learned Gentleman had attracted great attention, not only from his official position in that House, but also because he held a distinguished position as a lawyer. It would, perhaps, be convenient if he recalled the attention of the House to the circumstances under which the question was put. The attention of the hon. and learned Gentleman was called in this House to an advertisement which had appeared in The Times, relative to the collection of funds to promote the insurrection in Sicily. The hon. Member (Mr. Grant Duff) who introduced the subject frankly owned he wished success to the revolt, and hoped that, spreading into the main land,
  1368
  it would before long overwhelm the King and Government in titter, destruction. The hon. and learned Gentleman, in replying, said:—
  "The question was, whether the subscribing of money by any of Her Majesty's subjects in this country or paying it into the hands of a foreigner living here with the purpose and object described, came within the rule of common law, or was an offence against any prohibitory statute. Now, it appeared to him that, as long as what was done was limited within the bounds of a mere subscription in this country, such as this advertisement prescribed, no law of this country would be violated. The Foreign Enlistment Act prohibited the enlistment of soldiers and equipping of vessels. It did not in any way touch subscriptions. Any man who thought proper might put his hand into his pocket take out his money and put it into the hands of another on the faith of its going to Genoa to be disposed of by General Garibaldi, without violating any law whatever."
  Now, the purpose and object for which the money was collected, were set forth clearly enough in the advertisement, which was published in English and Italian, the English version being as follows:—
  "Subscription Fund in Aid of the Sicilians.—The committee appointed at the meeting of Italians, held at St. Martin's Hall on the 4th of May, announce that in conformity with the resolutions passed at that meeting, a subscription has been opened in aid of the Sicilians, and they earnestly invite all Italians resident within the United Kingdom, and all other persons who may be inclined to sympathize in the cause of Italy, to forward, as early as possible, their contributions to assist the Sicilians in their struggle for freedom. The subscriptions, when collected, will be transmitted to a central committee in Genoa, presided over by General Garibaldi."
  The hon. and learned Gentleman might also have ascertained the purpose and object of the fund to which subscriptions were invited from the resolutions passed at the meeting referred to in the advertisement, from the pages of the public press, or from the speech of the hon. Member who asked the question. It was perfectly evident that the object of the subscribers was simply to assist in promoting an insurrection against a Sovereign in amity with our own. General Garibaldi, to whom the subscriptions were to be paid, and who commanded the force which had landed in Sicily, had received a good deal of sympathy in this country. Sympathy had also been extended to two Italians who accompanied him. One of these was the notorious Ricciardi, a letter of whose had been published in The Times describing the proceedings of the expedition. In a proclamation addressed to the Italians, Ricciardi had used the following language:—

  1369
  "Independence requires revolution and war. All considerations as to progress of knowledge, civilization, industry, riches, and public property must be put aside."
  He spoke of Christianity thus:—
  "The fatal plant born in Judea—that error which has taken root among men—has only reached its high point of growth because it was invigorated with waves of blood. But a new era will soon begin for men, the glorious era of a redemption, very different from that of Christ."
  The despotic tendency of Italian liberalism he thus indicated:—
  "We do not want a popular assembly, fluctuating, uncertain, and slow to deliberate; we want a hand of iron to rule a people hitherto accustomed to differences of opinion, and enervated by slavery."
  Such were the words of the compatriot of Garibaldi. [Cries of" Date!"] The proclamation of Ricciardi, from which he had quoted, was issued in 1848. [A laugh.] The other companion of Garibaldi was the equally well-known Zambianchi, of whom some account would be found in a work with which a right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Gladstone) was well acquainted—Fariui's State Romano. in that work it was recorded that in 1849 Zambianchi had gathered together all the priests in San Carlisto, and there slaughtered them. He was well-known in Italy by the title of the "Priest Slaughterer," and was a prominent member of the society known as the "League of Blood." He wished also to direct their attention to the antecedents of Garibaldi himself. A correspondence took place last summer between two noble Lords as to General Garibaldi. In communicating with one of them on this subject he (Mr. Hennessy) called his attention to the character of the secret society of which Garibaldi, as a member, had taken the oaths, and his letter was published in some of the continental papers. It attracted the attention of a distinguished diplomatist employed by Her Majesty, who wrote to him to say he was very much struck by the rules of that society, as they completely confirmed the impression he had previously formed, and to ask permission to make use of his letter as an authority in "another place." Of course that permission was given at once. He would read to the House some of the rules of the society in question:—
  "Members who will not obey the orders of the secret society, or who unveil the mysteries, shall be poniarded without remission." "Each secret tribunal is competent not only to judge guilty adepts, but to put to death all persons whom it
  1370
  shall devote to death." "If the victim succeed in escaping he shall be pursued incessantly in every place, and the guilty shall be struck, were he sheltered on the bosom of his mother, or in the tabernacle of Christ."
  Few persons were aware of the extent to which these secret societies prevailed in Italy, or the nature of the oaths which they imposed on members. The rules he had quoted would give the House some idea of their character. He would proceed however to call the attention of the House to the opinion given by the hon. and learned Gentleman on the subject of the subscriptions. His statement had attracted much attention on the Continent. In The Times of the 15th inst. appeared a letter from a correspondent at Turin, who wrote thus:—
  "The late debate in the English Parliament respecting subscriptions opened in England for the avowed purpose of aiding Garibaldi's expedition, will go far, I have no doubt, towards reassuring the King's Ministers here, who thought themselves gravely compromised by the indulgence extended to some of the Sicilian sympathizers, who collected money for Garibaldi here. The position of Sardinia, however, differs in some degree from that of the British Empire, and the Italian proverb says 'the same offence brings one man to the throne, and another to the scaffold.'"
  Almost every paper in France, in Italy, and generally throughout Europe had published the opinion on this question given by one of the chief law advisers of the Crown. He would like to ask the hon. and learned Gentlemen himself whether he had not received intimations from subjects of the Queen in this country calling attention to the fact that they had been solicited to subscribe in aid of the Italian insurgents, and requesting him to institute a prosecution against those who thus violated the law. When he ventured the other evening to question the soundness of the opinion given by the hon. and learned Gentleman, he was only able to cite from memory a certain common law case in which an important decision had been given. This was a question, however, which depended, not merely on the common law of England, but also on international law. And he maintained that both by the common law of England and by international law, as understood in every State in Europe, and in every century of civilization, such a proceeding as that which one of the law advisers of the Crown had declared to be legal, was distinctly condemned as a violation of the law. He would first address himself to the common law of this country. They

  1371
  were fortunately in possession of a decision on the subject by the Court of Common Pleas—a very thoughtful and deliberate decision, given by one of the most eminent Judges who evers at upon the bench. In the year 1824 a case came on for trial before Chief Justice Best, in which the question arose; whether a certain engagement to raise money was valid or not. The Chief Justice laid down the law that the engagement being to raise money to promote insurrection against a Government in amity with our own was null and void, and subsequently, on a Motion for a new trial in the full Court, and giving the unanimous judgment of the Court, he said:—
  "It occurred to me at the trial that it was contrary to the law of nations, which in all cases of international law is adopted into the municipal code of every civilized country, for persons in England to enter into engagements to raise money to support the subjects of a Government in amity with our own in hostilities against their Government; and on further consideration I think that my opinion at the trial was right, and on that ground that we ought not to grant a new trial."
  The force of this decision would be understood by every hon. Member of the House. It at once declared that the act set forth and described in the advertisement in The Times was illegal according to the common law of England. He might, perhaps, be allowed to say a word upon the general question of international law and policy. He should quote the opinion of a learned Gentleman, once a Member of the House, whose authority would be admitted. Mr. Phillimore, in his Commentaries on International Law, said:—
  "A State is prima facie responsible for whatever is done within its jurisdiction. A body politic is responsible for the acts of individuals which are acts of actual or meditated hostility towards a nation with which the Government of these subjects professes to maintain relations of friendship or neutrality."
  He had a higher authority, however, than Mr. Phillimore—that of a gentleman who, he trusted, would take part in this debate—the present learned Attorney General himself. On February 19, 1858, on the second reading of the Conspiracy Bill, the hon. and learned Gentleman laid down the general principle:—
  "It is undoubtedly a principle of our law that whatever tends to interrupt the amity of the Sovereign with a foreign Power in alliance with our Sovereign is an offence, to use the language of some of the older statutes of our country, against the amity of the Crown."—[3 Hansard, cxlviii. p. 1824.]
  1372
  Another Member of Her Majesty's Government gave his opinion upon the subject in 1851. Dealing with a question closely resembling the present, the then Home Secretary, Sir George Grey, said—
  "I shall not be contradicted by any legal authority in this House when I say that foreigners adopting any measure with the view of levying war against any foreign country with which this country is at amity are guilty of an offence at common law, and are punishable on conviction by fine and imprisonment."
  At the time of the Conspiracy Bill, as well as he remembered, a distinction was drawn between foreigners and subjects of the Queen. It was alleged by the noble Lord at the head of the Government that the subjects of the Queen could be punished for certain offences, but that foreigners residing here could not be punished for those offences. The question which they were now considering was, whether an act in which both subjects and foreigners residing here had taken part was illegal, and therefore the authorities which he had read were much stronger than on the occasion to which he had referred. There remained a still higher authority—he believed he might say the highest living authority in this country—Lord Lyndhurst. It was a remarkable fact that a circumstance very similar to this occurred in the year 1851, and Lord Lyndhurst, in calling attention to the advertisement of the Central National Italian Committee for obtaining funds to raise insurrection in Italy, said—
  "Now, it is quite obvious, my Lords, that this is a breach of the implied engagement which those persons entered into when they came to this country to seek the protection of our laws, and I am sure your Lordships will join with me in reprehending such conduct in the strongest possible terms. My Lords, I am not so weak as to suppose for one moment that much money will be raised in this country by a body of this description. People are much more ready to throw up their caps and shout in favour of liberty, equality, and fraternity, than to lay down their money for such objects."—[3 Hansard, cxv. 623.]
  Fortunately, at that time Lord Lyndhurst's question was not addressed to a Member of Her Majesty's Government, whose sympathies with the Italian cause made him for the moment forget the common law of England, and Lord Grey, who replied to Lord Lyndhurst, used these remarkable words:—
  "Her Majesty's Government disapprove of any such proceedings as strongly as the noble and learned Lord himself, and to the full extent of the authority invested in them by the constitution and

  1373
  the law they would discourage and discountenance all such proceedings."
  The effect of that debate in the House of Lords was that proceedings censed, the advertisement was withdrawn, and the Central Italian Committee to promote insurrection was not heard of again until within the last few months. He might content himself with making this statement; but he felt that the present question was really connected with some others which had lately engaged the attention of the House. He felt that it was above all connected with certain despatches which the noble Lord the Foreign Secretary had thought fit to address to the Court of Naples; that it was very intimately connected with the attitude of the Emperor of the French, and the territorial changes which were taking place or impending in Europe; and, with the utmost respect, he would ask the House, on whose opinion the public opinion of Europe had so often relied, carefully to consider before they endorsed the insurrectionary spirit which he was sorry to say pervaded a certain portion of the English public, and before they encouraged the filibustering expedition of Garibaldi. Some time ago it was made a reproach to our friends across the Atlantic that they encouraged filibustering expeditions, and the American Government was called upon by more than one of the European Governments to explain their conduct. They repudiated those expeditions; but now, for the first time, one of the oldest established Governments of Europe—an old monarchy—actually came forward to sanction, almost to enforce, a filibustering expedition. There was a time when the foreign policy of England was not associated with revolutionists. There was a time when it was directed to maintain legitimate order, to uphold dynasties, and to promote the cause of civilization in Europe, and not to promote, as it now seemed, not only the cause of revolution and anarchy, but, as he thought he had indicated, the cause of assassination and outrage. He begged to apologize to the House, and particularly to the Solicitor General, for having presumed to call his attention to a point of law, and he assured them that in doing so no one knew better than he did himself how very poor his opinion must be.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL: Probably before this discussion proceeds further, it may be thought desirable that I should now state to the House, what was
  1374
  the real purport of the answer which I gave to the question put to me on Friday night last. I thought, at the time, that it was desirable I should be very careful and precise, and I endeavoured to be so. I prescribed strict limits to myself, but I see by the Report, with which I find no fault, that, especially if my answer be read disconnected from the question, what I said may tend to mislead. With the permission of the House, therefore, I will, as on that occasion, refer to the important words of the question. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Grant Duff) gave notice of his intention to ask me, whether my attention had been called to an advertisement, which appeared in the The Times of Wednesday, the 9th of May, announcing that a subscription had been opened in London in aid of the Sicilians; and whether persons, in this country, who contributed to the fund which it was proposed to raise, would render themselves liable to any legal proceedings. I intended to give a precise answer to that question. I understood—as I think every one would understand, and as I presume the hon. Gentleman who put the question intended by the words with winch it concluded—by "legal proceedings," proceedings in a criminal court, by way of indictment. I considered the question I was answering to be simply whether a poison who should read this advertisement, and in his own mind approve the result to which it points, and acting singly and individually, pay money into the hands of any one of the recipients named—aye or no, is he liable to be indicted at common law for a misdemeanour. My opinion was, and is, that he is not. I am not prepared to say that upon a matter like this, which is not of frequent occurrence, that is an opinion in which, without being limited and guarded, every lawyer in this House will concur; but I take upon myself the answer which I then gave, in the sense and with the intention I have explained. I will state, in a few words, the reasons for my view; but I must previously express a hope that the hon. Member (Mr. Hennessy) will excuse me if I decline to follow him into some of the topics to which he has thought fit to advert. It is not for me to defend Garibaldi, or any person who may be engaged with him, in any part of Italy, in any act of insurrection. All I have to deal with is the dry point of law, and the propriety of the answer which I gave the other night. I repeat that my real intention in giving that answer was to express my opinion that

  1375
  an individual who by himself, of his own free will, paid a subscription of this sort, would not, by the mere simple fact of his subscribing, render himself liable to an indictment at common law. The question is whether that would be an indictable act. I am not prepared to question the doctrine—though the point is a very different one from that which the hon. Gentleman has brought before the House—that persons engaged in a conspiracy to foment, or excite, insurrection in the States of a friendly Power, would be liable to prosecution. The hon. Gentleman has stated that noble Lords and persons of high authority have laid it down that such a conspiracy may be dealt with criminally as a misdemeanour, and the persons engaging in it visited with fine and imprisonment. So far from taking exception to that doctrine, I will quote a passage from a speech of Lord Lyndhurst on this point. The noble and learned Lord said, on the 4th of March, 1853:—
  "If a number of British subjects were to combine and conspire together to excite revolt among the inhabitants of a friendly State—of a State united in alliance with us—and these persons, in pursuance of that conspiracy, were to issue manifestoes and proclamations for the purpose of carrying that object into effect; above all, if they were to subscribe money for the purpose of purchasing arms to give effect to that intended enterprise, I conceive, and I state with confidence, that such persons would be guilty of a misdemeanour, and liable to suffer punishment by the laws of this country, inasmuch as their conduct would tend to embroil the two countries together, to lead to remonstrances by the one with the other, and ultimately, it might be, to war."—[3 Hansard, cxxiv., 1047.]
  I find no fault with that proposition, but every lawyer is aware of the extreme difficulty of bringing the provisions of the criminal law to bear on such a case; indeed, we had not long ago a proof, in the case of Dr. Bernard, of the extreme difficulty of applying the common law—assuming it to be the law—against persons conspiring in this country to forward some act that was to take place in a foreign country. In justice to myself, I must repeat that I expressed an opinion, the other night, only on the particular case which was put to me. No person has asked me what would be the condition of persons forming themselves into a Committee, for the purpose of exciting or supporting an insurrection in a foreign friendly State. I gave no opinion as to what might be the position of persons causing the insertion of these advertisements in the newspapers, or of the pub-
  1376
  lishers of the newspapers themselves; much less did I take upon myself to express any opinion as to what might be the consequences, penal or otherwise, of a conspiracy such as was referred to in the debate in the Lords. With this limitation, I still hold, and I repeat the opinion which I expressed the other night. The Foreign Enlistment Act does not touch the case of subscriptions; but there is the strongest evidence, in that Act of the insufficiency of the common law of this country to deal with offences of this description. The preamble of the Act runs thus:—
  "Whereas the enlistment or engagement of His Majesty's subjects to serve in war in foreign service without His Majesty's licence, and the fitting out and equipping and arming of vessels without His Majesty's licence for warlike operations on or against the dominions of any foreign Prince, State, &c., or against the ships, goods, or merchandise of any foreign Prince, &c., as aforesaid, may endanger the peace and welfare of the kingdom; and whereas the laws in force are not sufficiently effectual for preventing the same—"
  It does not give a penal character to offences in violation of its enactments beyond the terms of the common law; it makes the offences, which arise from such a violation, misdemeanour, and misdemeanour only; and therefore there is in it the strongest evidence of the insufficiency, in a general way, of the common law doctrine of misdemeanour to reach these cases. My attention has been called by the hon. Gentleman to a case decided in the Court of Common Pleas, and from some general observations made in that case—more in the way of dicta than decisions on any particular point—he has inferred that the act of subscription would, according to the authority of the Court of Common Pleas, amount to an indictable offence. Upon that point I am entirely at issue with the hon. Gentleman. I do not deny that, in the ease of a foreign loan attempted to be raised hero, for the purpose of fomenting an insurrection in a foreign country in amity with us, the Court of Common Pleas, in an action on the contract, has held that the contract could not be enforced, being tainted with the character of illegality. But every lawyer knows that illegality is one thing, and criminality another. Every lawyer knows that contracts are perpetually brought before the Courts, either to have their performance enforced, or to recover damages for a breach of them, with regard to which the Courts decide that fulfilment cannot be compelled, nor damages recovered, and yet no one would

  1377
  say that the persons engaging in them were liable to an indictment. The law holds a variety of contracts to be void, such, for instance, as contracts for the price of obscene and immoral books or prints, contracts prejudicial to the public revenue, against the policy of the bankruptcy and insolvency laws, contracts affecting the course of public justice, and others; in all these cases there is an illegality in one sense, and such an illegality as to prevent the Courts of law enforcing the contract, but there is not in them what I will call criminality. If a person, who had received subscriptions for the purpose of an undertaking of this kind, were to turn round and say, "I shall not apply them to the purposes indicated. I shall give them, instead, to this, that, or the other Prince or potentate," and the subscribers were to bring their actions, the Courts might say that, though there was no criminality in the contract, it was so far tainted with illegality, so much against the policy and spirit of the law, that damages for a breach of it could not be enforced. When the matter is really understood, it will be found, I apprehend, that there is no great difference between the authorities cited by the hon. Gentleman and myself; and, with the limitation of the doctrine of conspiracy to which I have adverted, I adhere to the opinion which I gave the other night.
  MR. WHITESIDE: If, Sir, the answer given to the House the other night by the hon. and learned Gentleman, has, by means of the electric telegraph, created some confusion abroad, I think I can undertake to say that the speech which he has just made, if transmitted in the same way, will not be productive of much alarm, as I rather think it will not be understood. In the words of the old couplet,—
  "He darkens by elucidation,
  And mystifies by explanation."
  I am utterly at a loss to know what the hon. and learned Gentleman really thinks upon this matter, which is one of great importance to the peace of Europe, and to the estimation in which this country is to be held abroad. When he sat down I was more in the dark even than when he got up to understand what are his views upon this grave question of international law. The question is this:—An advertisement appeared in the papers referring to a committee of individuals who had joined themselves together for the purpose—whether laudable or not this is not the place to dis-
  1378
  cuss—of collecting and conveying subscriptions to those persons who are now in insurrection against their Sovereign, the King of Naples in Sicily. That is a fact which it is beyond the hon. and learned Gentleman's powers of explanation to mystify. I understand that the learned Gentleman was asked, in reference to that advertisement, whether it was legal for a body of persons so to join themselves together in this country, and whether it was legal for persons to subscribe according to the requisition of that advertisement, for the purposes therein stated. I understand him to have stated that, in his opinion, it was. Forthwith his reply is flashed over Europe, and is quoted in the Sardinian Parliament. It has been taken up as an exposition of international law, that the more friendly you appear to be to a particular Sovereign, the more actively you may engage in compassing his destruction; and therefore, if to-morrow an advertisement were to appear from certain exiles in some journal, referring to a committee for regulating the affairs of France, and calling on persons to give in their subscriptions for the purpose of restoring the Orleans family, and dethroning the French Emperor, we should be told in the same way that such a proposition was legal. To do justice to the Solicitor General—not that I understand it—the distinction which he drew was this: If an individual pays his money, it may be misapplied; but, as it would be opposed to the principles of morality, to sanction a legal investigation as to whether the money was applied in disposing of the Sovereign for whose destruction, according to the terms of the advertisement, it was specifically to be applied, therefore, he says, an individual may lawfully subscribe. I doubt it. The hon. and learned Gentleman was not asked by what means such a person was to be prosecuted, nor as to the form of the indictment—that was not the technical question which was put; but whether a man could lawfully subscribe in aid of the object, which persons forming themselves into a public body, had undertaken to accomplish. I say they can not.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL: The question is, whether they would be liable to any legal proceeding.
  MR. WHITESIDE: It is true the question is put in that form; but the hon. and learned Gentleman is not asked to specify what exact proceedings should be taken; and it is impossible to escape from the difficulty by reference to the case of an individual,

  1379
  because the very document shows that he is only one of a number. I cannot understand the distinction taken by the hon. Gentleman, when he puts the case of a person who is supposed to subscribe to a fund set on foot by a number, and at the same time to isolate himself from a conspiracy; or the case of a fund to which contributions are made by foreigners resident in this country. Nobody ever heard of a distinction drawn in such cases between foreigners residing here, and natives of this kingdom; all alike are subject to the laws of England. And if it be unlawful for a body of British subjects to form a committee to collect subscriptions, and to dethrone the Emperor of the French, it would be equally repugnant to international and positive law—by which I mean the common law of this country—for them to meet together and subscribe for the purpose of overthrowing any other Sovereign. The law of nations does not depend on the nature of any Government; it is immaterial to us whether the State be a Republic, or whether the Government be absolute or Parliamentary, as long as we are living at peace with it; and, for my part, I hope we shall live at peace with all Governments. States are bound to behave towards each other with scrupulous impartiality, and with the strictest good faith. And I know nothing more mischievous—though the occurrence was, I believe, accidental, and the hon. and learned Gentleman admits that his answer may have been misunderstood—than that any Member of the Government, even for the sake of a little temporary popularity, should have the appearance of connecting himself with such a prominent person as Garibaldi, and in the face of Europe to sanction proceedings, which international law disapproves. The hon. and learned Gentleman, when he refers to an opinion of Lord Lyndhurst, shows that he approves of it; and, I must say, that it is an opinion exactly applicable to the question before the House. The noble Lord there speaks of a committee formed for an illegal object; here are members of a public body presuming to assemble themselves together, and by means of advertisements inviting persons to subscribe, it being directly stipulated that the amount raised shall be sent to Garibaldi, to aid in overthrowing the Government of the King of the Two Sicilies. It has been spread all over Europe that, in the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown, there is no illegality in such a proceeding. I venture,
  1380
  with all humility, to say that if such an opinion were inadvertently given, it is a mistake. No contributions to be collected through a body, of which, by his subscription, the person makes himself one—and therefore responsible for their acts—can be legal, or in accordance with constitutional law, when it is openly avowed that these contributions are sought for the purpose of overturning the Government of any Sovereign with whom we live on terms of amity and peace.
  MR. EDWIN JAMES: Sir, I should not have said a word on this question if the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General had not cited as a precedent—or rather as an instance of the difficulty of convicting persons on a criminal charge of conspiring to commit offences against the laws of foreign countries—the case of Dr. Bernard. That case has nothing whatever to do with the matter we are now discussing. Dr. Bernard was not indicted for conspiracy at common law, but for an offence under a particular statute, and he was acquitted by a jury. Inasmuch as I was an advocate in that case, I shall refrain from stating any grounds of the acquittal but those which are publicly known. It was felt on that occasion that a statute had been perverted for the purpose of endeavouring, by the indictment of an individual, to relieve the Government from a political difficulty; and the jury were perfectly justified in the view which they took, because the Government were challenged to bring forward their legal arguments, and, those legal arguments being postponed, the defendant was acquitted on the facts of the case. Dr. Bernard was indicted, not for conspiracy at common law, as the hon. and learned Gentleman has told the House, but under a statute which every lawyer in Westminster Hall know was framed and passed to meet an entirely different offence from that with which the prisoner was charged. And therefore, when the Solicitor General states the difficulty of convicting persons of conspiracy, his observation must be taken to apply to the evidence; and if this is a conspiracy—and I, as a lawyer, have no doubt that it is—the hon. and learned Gentleman, I think, will find grounds for reconsidering the hasty and immature opinion which he has given on this subject. What clearer evidence to insure conviction can you have of the overt acts of a conspiracy than the payment of money by one individual, and its receipt by another? If a committee advertise for subscriptions, they ate surely sup-

  1381
  posed to be human beings congregated for the purposes of that subscription; and if a person pays to them a certain sum towards the object for which they have advertised, and they receive it, I want any lawyer to got up in this House and say what stronger evidence of overt acts can be afforded. The hon. and learned Gentleman, therefore, when he stated that persons under such circumstances were not liable to legal proceedings, answered, I think, a little off his guard, and gave rather a rash opinion. I deem it of great importance that this matter should be thoroughly understood on the Continent; and I feel that we are indebted to the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the King's County for having brought it forward. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General has truly said that this is not as an offence against the Foreign Enlistment Act. It certainly is not. It has no more to do with it than with the Habeas Corpus Act; but there is a question to which the Foreign Enlistment Act does apply, and I ask the hon. and learned Member for the Kings's County to bring that forward on another occasion. I allude to circumstances to which the Foreign Enlistment Act expressly applies, to the case of parties who are now committing offences under that Act by carrying on the enlistment in Ireland of persons who are to be sent over to Rome, and there to join the army of General Lamoriciere. When the hon. and learned Member talks of the slaughter of priests, I think we may say with equal force that the transmission of recruits to swell the foreign army which is to take part in the massacre of the Pope's subjects, comes equally within the provisions of the Foreign Enlistment Act.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: There should be no misunderstanding with regard to the principles by which every Government and every nation ought to be guided on subjects such as that now under consideration, and those principles I freely agree to be these:—You have no right whatever to interfere in the domestic affairs of another nation. That, unquestionably, is the rule of the common law, and the foundation of all legislation on the subject. If you wanted to exemplify this in your own history, the lecture which you read to the French king on the occasion of the revolt of your North American colonies would supply you with abundance both of principles and of reasoning. I quite agree, therefore, that, according to the common law of England, any subjects of the Queen
  1382
  who, either directly or indirectly, may supply money in aid of the revolt of subjects of any nation or Power with whom we are in alliance, commit an offence at common law. But, as I before had occasion to state, there is a very great difference and a long interval between the enunciation of that principle and the manner in which it is to be carried into execution. In proceedings of a criminal nature, or which are otherwise founded on any rule of common law, your only guide can he precedent and authority; and those hon. Members who speak most confidently on this branch of law would, I think, be quite unable to point out any case or decision in the books in which there has been any instance of a successful application of the general principle, in the shape of an indictment for this particular offence. That, however, is not exactly the point to which the attention of the House can be advantageously directed, although it was the precise point to which the remarks of my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General were directed by the very narrow and limited question which was put to him. When the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Whiteside) indulged himself in that ridicule in which he is so successful, both of the answer which was given, and of the explanation which has been afforded, I could heartily wish that the accuracy of the right hon. and learned Gentleman and his knowledge of the subject had been equal to his powers of speech. I certainly should advise him never again to indulge himself in his usual vein of ridicule until he has thoroughly ascertained the facts of the case on which he is speaking. Now, the question put to my hon. and learned Friend was simply this—Had the persons subscribing to this fund rendered themselves liable to legal proceedings? Could any one imagine that by "legal proceedings" it was meant could a civil action be brought against them? Could the legal proceedings mean anything but a criminal prosecution? The hon. and learned Member for Marylebone says the Members of the Committee are conspirators; and that any persons subscribing to the funds might be included in an accusation of conspiracy. I should have been glad if the hon. and learned Gentleman had condescended to mention some instances that would have justified this conclusion. I was very anxious to find one when the Conspiracy Bill was under consideration, but I did not succeed, although I found enunciations of the

  1383
  general principle in abundance. I cannot therefore think that my hon. and learned Friend spoke unadvisedly or rashly when he said there was no ground on which an indictment could be laid against persons contributing to these funds. At the same time, I should have been very glad if my hon. and learned Friend had accompanied his remarks with the general statement—as he would no doubt have done if his attention had been directed to it—that all these things are contrary to the policy of the law, the object of which is, above all, that the peace of the Crown should be preserved. The law, therefore, prohibits anything that may endanger the peace between the Sovereign of England and the Sovereign of another State. That great principle of the law must be accepted by every person; and the common law of England, although it may have provided no particular remedy, yet in conformity with general good faith and expediency, lays down in the strongest manner the principle that all subjects of the realm are bound to abstain from every interference that tends to excite the subjects of another country against its lawful authorities. What those authorities may be is not the question. It matters not that they may be cruel, or tyrannical; that is not the question. If the sovereign be in amity with this country, it would be wrong and illegal for any persons hero to interfere with the affairs of his kingdom. An hon. Gentleman has said that the committee formed for the collection of those subscriptions is open to an indictment for conspiracy. I must, however, observe, that according to the papers, almost the whole of that committee is constituted of foreigners. Now, I do not mean to say that the principle of the law does not extend its prohibition to all persons who are permanently resident within this kingdom, and who owe allegiance to, as they receive protection from, the Crown; but I do not believe that that principle has ever been established upon authority, and I therefore warn the House against receiving with confidence the statement that there has been (as the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite seemed to say) a positive enunciation of the law to that extent. I confine myself solely to the question of the common law, which lays down the principle I have stated in the strongest possible form, and it is therefore the duty of the Government to take care that that law is not violated by any of the subjects of the realm.
  SIR HUGH CAIRNS: I think if the answer of the Solicitor General had been at the time accompanied by all the explanations, the comments, and, I may add, the solemn lecture just delivered by the Attorney General, that answer would have done very little harm; and, probably, there would have been no necessity to trouble the House again with a discussion on the subject. I entirely concur with one part of the speech of the hon. and learned Solicitor General that the importance of the question cannot tie overrated. But there are two grounds which render accuracy in dealing with this question especially necessary. The first is the effect of inaccuracy on our relations with foreign Powers, which cannot fail to be seriously disturbed if a rash and inaccurate answer is spread abroad as having been given by the Government in this House. The other reason that renders accuracy of great consequence is this,—the law officers of the Crown know perfectly well that their answer will be read by foreigners in this country; and persons who are amenable to the law of the Queen, are likely to regulate their conduct by this statement of that law as given officially in this House. It would be much to be lamented, if, after an opinion had been given on the part of the Crown in the House of Commons, criminal proceedings should be taken against any persons for misdemeanour, and the persons indicted should be able to say they trusted to the opinion given by the legal advisers of the Crown as the true exposition of the law; and that when they acted in the manner complained of they thought they had competent authority for what they did. I think with the hon. and learned Member for Marylebone that the hon. Member for King's County (Mr. Hennessy) has done good service in bringing this subject forward. It has been reduced to the smallest possible compass by the definition of the law given by the Solicitor General. He admits the principle laid down by Lord Lyndhurst,—that if a course of united action is taken to effect an illegal purpose, by any number of persons, that amounts to a conspiracy, and all who take part in that action are liable to be indicted for the conspiracy. The question, then, is this:—Does a subscription to funds raised with the object of subverting the government of another State render the particular individual subscribing liable to indictment for conspiracy? The Attorney General wants an authority for such an indictment. I

  1385
  think the point is clear; I think an illustration may be given, of which the House will see the force, and which docs not require much legal acumen to appreciate. Suppose subscriptions were advertised for in London with the object of raising a not in Yorkshire, would any person say that a person subscribing to that fund, for the promotion of that purpose would not be guilty of conspiring to effect it? I cannot conceive what act of conspiracy can be more overt or more definite than handing money to a common fund when it is known that the fund is to be applied in a particular way. But the Attorney General says there is a further difficulty that must be attended to. He says, "True, the funds are advertised for in this country, but the persons advertising, though residing here, are foreigners." It is the first time I ever heard, when it is a question of the application of the common law, that foreigners residing within the Queen's dominions, do not owe perfect and complete allegiance to the Crown, and are not liable to punishment for every offence for which penalties are inflicted by that law. Certainly questions might arise, under particular statutes, whether the words are large enough to include foreigners, or whether they are limited to British subjects. That must depend on the words of the particular enactments. But to say that the common law does not extend to every man, woman, and child within the jurisdiction of the Queen is a proposition that I never expected to hear from an Attorney General of England. [The ATTORNEY GENERAL: I did not say that.] I am glad that the simple application of the argument has drawn a negative from the hon. and learned Gentleman. That application, however, I submit is fatal to the distinction which he attempted to draw. It is quite patent that whether the parties are foreigners resident in this country, or natural-born British subjects they are equally liable to an indictment for a conspiracy for contributing to such a fund as that described in the advertisement alluded to.
  MR. BOVILL: The importance of this question cannot be overrated. By the interpretation of the law on this subject, the interests of England and Europe may be affected. If what is being done in the present instance is legal, might also be done in the case a neighbouring country, where the interests of England would be more nearly concerned. If this subscription is illegal by the law of nations, being
  1386
  made openly without any attempt to repress it, the King of Naples might immediately, and without a declaration of war, seize the property of all British subjects in his dominions. I assent to the proposition of the Attorney General, that this subscription is illegal; the Government has not prevented the subscription; and at this moment we might be treated as virtually at war with Naples. I do not say this without authority; I have high authority for the statement—one respected throughout Europe. There are passages in Vattel, which will distinctly show the peril to which we are at this moment exposed in consequence of the Government not having disapproved and endeavoured to stop the subscription. The law of nations is part of the common law of this country. And it is the recognized law of Europe that whatever tends to the destruction of peace, is a violation of the law of nations. How, let me ask, would the case stand between two countries which happened to be at war, and a third which desired to be neutral? Why, it is evident that that third State must exercise an absolute neutrality in order to effect her object, and must not assist either party with subscriptions; and if that be so, how much stronger is the case when the subjects of a nation revolt against the constituted authorities? It is, I may add, illegal, even if no Foreign Enlistment Act were in existence, to allow the recruiting of soldiers here in favour of one country against another with which we happen to be on terms of amity, or in favour of subjects who have revolted against their own established Government. Vattel lays down the doctrine that it is a violation of the law of nations to invite subjects to revolt against their lawful Sovereign, although they may have substantial grounds to complain of his rule. That opinion distinctly applies to the present case, and is borne out by Chancellor Kent and other eminent authorities. The Court of Common Pleas, moreover, decided that it was illegal to subscribe or enter into contracts for the purpose of affording assistance to subjects who rebelled against their Sovereign; and it matters not, let me remind the House, whether that assistance be rendered by means of troops, or vessels, or money. Let me suppose, that we had, in the present instance, to deal, not with a movement against the King of Naples, but with reference to the Emperor of the French, and that we were to invite subscriptions against him in support of his subjects who

  1387
  had revolted against his authority. What course would it, under those circumstances, be open to him to take? Why, he would have a perfect right to call us to account for the course which we allowed to be pursued, and to enter into hostilities against us without even making a declaration of war. Assistance rendered by France to America led to a war between England and the former country, just as our proceedings now may lead to a war with Naples. We are, indeed, told by the Attorney General that the principle of those proceedings is opposed to the policy of the common law; but the hon. and learned Gentleman, I think, somewhat astonished the House by intimating that there was no legal remedy against those who took part in them. It is contended that you must in those instances proceed as for a conspiracy; but I should like to know what evidence of conspiracy there is in the case of an individual who libels a foreign Sovereign, for being guilty of doing that for which Peltier was tried and convicted, on the ground that the act tended to embroil the subjects of the King of Great Britain with a foreign State. It is then, I maintain, an offence of the most serious description for any individual—even though he may do it without concert with others—openly to invite subscriptions—it matters not whether they be or be not collected—for the purpose of aiding the revolt of the subjects of a foreign country against their Sovereign. Such a proceeding is a direct violation of international law, and ought to be held liable to punishment. ["Oh, oh!"] Hon. Gentlemen may dissent from that view; it may not be thought necessary to enforce the law; but it is, I submit to the House, a most important question whether we have, or have not, lone acts which place us in a condition leading to actual war with the King of Naples. I may also remark that if it goes forth that the acts of which we are speaking are illegal, but that the law of England cannot touch the offenders, the consequence may not improbably be that we shall have persons coming over to this country from abroad and openly soliciting subscriptions for this purpose. I maintain, therefore, that the subject is one of considerable importance, and that the commission of acts by which the peace of the Queen and her subjects is likely to be disturbed, and by which this country may be involved in war, is in itself a serious misdemeanour.

ARMY (PENSIONS FOR WOUNDS).

  HER MAJESTY'S REPLY TO ADDRESS.
  LORD PROBY(Comptroller of the Household) appeared at the Bar of the House, with a reply from Her Majesty to an Address from the House, on the subject of Pensions for Wounds:—
  I have received your Address, praying that I will reconsider the Warrant granting Pensions and Allowances to Officers of the Land Forces, limited to Wounds and Injuries received in Action.
  And you may be assured that the subject shall receive due consideration.

THE REFORMATORY SYSTEM IN IRELAND.—QUESTION.
LORD CLAUD HAMILTONsaid, he rose to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland if his attention has been called to the case of William Hawthorne, who was recently confined in the St. Kevin's Reformatory; and whether any inquiry has been made as to the authors of certain Letters, written from that establishment, which were represented to have been written by William Hawthorne. He was happy to be able to say that in asking this question and making a few remarks on the subject to which it referred, he had no intention in any way to arraign the conduct of any Member of Her Majesty's Government. On the contrary, the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Cardwell) had, as he was informed, acted in the matter with great firmness, propriety, and efficiency. The circumstances of the case, however, had excited a good deal of interest in some parts of Ireland, and his object was to elicit a statement of the facts as they had actually occurred. It was well known that the formation of reformatories in Ireland had been viewed with great jealousy and distrust; and, after a good deal of discussion and consideration, separate reformatories were established for the youths of the several religious persuasions. This being the state of things as regarded the institutions themselves, a Protestant lad, residing at Belfast, having got into bad company, was arrested on the charge of theft, of which offence he was convicted before the resident magistrate. He was sentenced to a month's imprisonment in the county gaol, and five years' detention in a reformatory. The moment the lad heard the sentence he announced that he

1389
was a Roman Catholic. His companions in guilt were of that persuasion, and his motive in making that statement no doubt was to induce the magistrate to send him to the same reformatory with them. His parents, who were Protestants, informed the Court he was no such thing, having been born, baptized, and brought up as a Protestant. The magistrate decided, however, on taking the boy's statement, and sending him to a Roman Catholic reformatory. The mother of the lad was in a state of extreme grief at the thought that her son was about to be incarcerated for five years in a Roman Catholic establishment, She immediately proceeded to the place where he had been baptized, and got a legal certificate of his baptism as a Protestant. However, the magistrate—for what reason he (Lord C. Hamilton) could not say—had taken the evidence of the lad himself, and in due time he was sent to a Roman Catholic reformatory in the county of Wicklow. The case created great excitement in Belfast, and it was right to mention that Mr. Lavery, the sanitary inspector of the Belfast Town Council, a very respectable gentleman, himself a Roman Catholic, had got up a memorial, praying that the sentence, so far as it directed the detention in the Roman Catholic reformatory, might not be carried out. To that memorial a large number of signatures were attached; nevertheless the magistrate adhered to his decision, and notice was sent to the Roman Catholic reformatory that the boy was to be sent there. He (Lord C. Hamilton) was happy to be able to say that another Roman Catholic of great respectability interfered at this stage of the proceedings. Mr. Murray, the hon. Secretary of the Wicklow Roman Catholic Reformatory, at once protested against the proceeding. He wrote a letter, in which he stated that he considered the sending of the boy to the Roman Catholic reformatory was a breach of the Irish Reformatory Act; and he wished to enter his protest against it. He received no reply to his letter, and, two or three days after, on going through the establishment, he was greatly surprised and much vexed at seeing the lad there. In spite of the efforts made by Roman Catholic gentlemen—in spite of the appeal of the boys' parents—in spite of the memorial stating that the father and mother of the boy were Protestants, and that be had been brought up a Protestant—and in spite of the production of the baptismal certificate—he was sent to the Wicklow Roman Catholic Re-
1390
formatory. The first portion of his (Lord C. Hamilton's) question, therefore, was, whether any inquiry had been made into the circumstances of this extraordinary deviation from the Irish Reformatory Act. The second portion of it related to what had taken place after the lad arrived there, and which he thought the House would say was of a most extraordinary character. The lad was not a very good scholar, he was barely able to scrawl, and was not capable of expressing himself in any but very common language. The House might judge of the astonishment of his parents when, on the third day of his residence in the reformatory, they received from him a letter commencing thus:—
"My dear Mother,—" I seize the earliest opportunity of addressing a few lines to you in order to inform you of my whereabouts, and of the kind of place I am in, and the privileges and many advantages which are held out to boys who are well-disposed to be good."
He then went on to describe the place and said—
"Now to begin, we have 100 boys, exclusive of all the staff and officers. We have a capital school, a beautiful chapel, and hear mass every day; also a fine band for our amusement, and recreation."
The letter proceeded:—
"Everything that can possibly be done both for our temporal and spiritual welfare and well-being in after life is most strictly attended to. This is nothing short of home for us; we have everything granted to us which may be necessary, and plenty of open air exercise and recreation."
He (Lord C. Hamilton) asked the attention of the House to what followed:—
"I have heard of what you have been doing [this referred to the efforts of his parents to get him out, which could have been communicated to him only by some functionary within the establishment], but I can only say, in the midst of my grief, that the day I leave here will go nigh breaking my heart, for I should be sent to a Protestant reformatory in Dublin, which is totally against my wish and inclination."
Every one must admit that the boy had made great progress in three days. The mother, who knew the state of her son's scholastic acquirements when he left his home, must have thought that if the letter had been written by her son, St. Kevin's Reformatory must be an establishment in which miracles were performed. In a few days after the father got a letter, in which the boy said—
"When I last wrote to you I was positively assured that a representation had been made to the Lord Lieutenant, to the effect that you had objected to my being sent to a Catholic reformatory, and

1391
that, consequently, I was to be transferred to the Protestant reformatory in Dublin. Now, my dear Father, you know that I am not a Protestant; and if I were sent to an institution where I could not practise the duties of my own religion I should be broken-hearted. As for my being sent home to you, there is not the slightest chance of such a thing, for the Lord Lieutenant would never do it. Now, my dear Father, if you wish to do me good, as I know you do, write a few lines to Mr. Tracy, the magistrate, and tell him that you are quite willing (if I must be in a reformatory) to have me left where I am."
There was more to a similar effect, and then came a repetition of the observation—
"But if I am taken away, and sent to a Protestant Reformatory, I shall be broken-hearted."
Owing to the prompt intervention of the right hon. Gentleman the Chief Secretary for Ireland, the lad was very properly sent home to his parents. On his arrival, he expressed the greatest satisfaction at returning home, and assured his parents he had never written any letter home, requesting to be allowed to remain at the reformatory; all he knew was that one of the gentlemen connected with the Reformatory read something to him which he did not understand; but he neither wrote himself, nor did he express any of the wishes which those letters contained. This alone showed that something was going on within the walls of that reformatory which called for the most searching inquiry. He knew nothing of the author of these documents; but, on authority which he believed to be correct, the schoolmaster of the reformatory was supposed to be the writer of them. When an establishment for the reformation of young criminals was maintained at the public expense, what was to be thought of the tuition given in it when it was in the hands of a schoolmaster who could deliberately forge the letters purporting to come from that boy, for the double object of deceiving his parents as to his wishes, and also of carrying on a system of proselytism. He hoped the Attorney General for Ireland would, therefore, state whether an inquiry had been instituted into how it happened that the magistrate, in violation of the statute, came to send a lad, being a Protestant, to a Roman Catholic reformatory. Also, whether any investigation had taken place into the authorship of the letters, a portion of which he had just read, with the view of making the writer responsible for his conduct. The case had created great disgust in Ireland, and, unless effective steps were taken to check such practices, the suspicions which existed when
1392
reformatories were originally established would be greatly strengthened and increased.
MR. DEASYsaid, he should be sorry if anything that occurred in that case or in any discussion in that House should have the effect of prejudicing the mind of the House either against the reformatory system generally, or against the particular reformatory alluded to by the noble Lord. That reformatory had been productive of very beneficial effects upon the criminal population of Ireland; but, no doubt, it was the duty both of the Government and the House to see that in institutions maintained, not indeed at the public expense, but to which the public contributed, every safeguard was provided against abuse. William Hawthorne was convicted of larceny before Mr. Tracy, the resident magistrate at Belfast, and sentenced to one month's imprisonment and five years' seclusion in a reformatory. When before the magistrate the boy stated that he was a Roman Catholic, and that gentleman, who was a very efficient magistrate and a Protestant, took this view of the case—that he was to be guided in the selection of a reformatory by the religion of the criminal himself. That was a mistake in point of law, and that was the only thing that could be said of it. As soon as Mr. Tracy found that his view of the law was questioned he called the attention of the Government to the matter; a case was submitted to the law officers, and directions were issued for the instruction of magistrates in similar cases. Mr. Murray, the hon. Secretary of St. Kevin's Reformatory, also wrote, stating his opinion that the committal was erroneous, and that the boy ought to be removed, which fact showed that there was no wish on the part of those having the management of the institution to detain him contrary to the provisions of the statutes. The case was submitted to the late Attorney General for Ireland (Mr. Justice FitzGerald) and himself, and they were of opinion that Mr. Tracy's view of the law was mistaken, but that the period allowed by the Act for transferring the boy to a Protestant reformatory having expired, the only order that could legally be made was one for his discharge, and he had been discharged accordingly early in the month of February. With regard to the letters just quoted by the noble Lord, the Chief Inspector of Reformatories (Captain Crofton), under the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, lost no time in communicating with the manager actu-

1393
ally in charge of this institution, and ascertained that the letters in question were written at the dictation of the boy by the schoolmaster. The manager expressed his regret that any such tiling should have occurred, and undertook that there should be no recurrence of anything of the kind. Captain Crofton had no doubt that the statements of the boy as set out in the letters were highly coloured and exaggerated. The House would perhaps think that there was a sufficient guarantee for the general management of this and similar institutions in the fact that Captain Crofton, who issued the certificates to the reformatories, had the power of recommending that they should be withdrawn, should it appear to him that they were not properly conducted, and the Government would at once act on his recommendation.

ITALY.
  INSURRECTION IN SICILY.—SUBSCRIPTIONS FOR GARIBALDI.

    OBSERVATIONS.
    MR. G. W. HOPEtrusted that the House would receive a fuller explanation of the state of the law than had yet been given by the learned Attorney General on the subject of the subscription for the insurrectionists in Sicily. It was fully established that we had no legal power to turn aliens out of this country. We were, therefore, according to the Attorney General, in this extraordinary position—that while we could not expel foreigners, we were at the same time unable to enforce our laws upon them. This was a matter that concerned other countries as well as our own, and the House had been given to understand that our law could not be enforced equally on foreigners living in England, and on our own fellow-subjects. That was too important a point to be left as it stood, upon the mere casual explanation of an authority like the Attorney General, and he hoped, therefore, that that learned Gentleman would distinctly state whether he meant to propound such a doctrine to the House.
    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: What I stated was simply this, that the rule of the common law is applicable to the subjects of England; but it has never been decided that mere foreigners resident in the country would come within the meaning of the words "subjects of the Queen." The better opinion undoubtedly is that any conduct which in the subjects of the Queen would be entitled conspiracy would in the
    1394
    case of foreigners receive the same designation; but it is difficult to say how far the rule is to be carried, for let me put this case—Suppose that a natural born English subject sent £100,000 to Garibaldi, undoubtedly I should consider that act a misdemeanour indictable at common law; but suppose a Sicilian refugee sent the same sum, I should have no confidence in giving an opinion that that also would be a misdemeanour at common law. In the absence of decisions the subject does not admit of a more decided opinion.
    MR. MONSELLsaid, that before the House left this subject from which their attention had been already divided by two little episodes, he wished to call upon Her Majesty's Government to state what were their intentions with regard to this most important matter. The law had been distinctly laid down by the Attorney General, and there was no doubt that what was now being done in this country, not only by foreigners but also by subjects of the Queen, was in direct contravention of the law of nations and contrary to the law of this country. If these subscriptions had reference to the invasion of the territories of a more powerful Sovereign than the King of Naples, could there be any doubt as to the course which Her Majesty's Government would feel themselves bound or rather forced to pursue? He would suppose the case of the Ionian Islands. He had, it was true, never met a Sicilian who was not opposed to the Neapolitan Government, but neither had he ever met an Ionian who was not equally opposed to British rule. Suppose, then, that in France or Russia subscriptions were got up and announced in the public papers for the purpose of freeing the people of the Ionian Islands from the yoke of Great Britain, should we for one moment tolerate such a proceeding? Was it not right and proper, then, that we should do to others what we should wish them to do to us, and should deal with small and insignificant States in the same manner that we should be compelled to deal with great and powerful ones? He, therefore, wished to know whether Her Majesty's Government were prepared to take up this matter, to ascertain whether a prosecution could be instituted, and, if it could, to undertake it at once; because the very announcement of their determination to pursue such a course would have a moral force and a moral weight in this country, and would throughout Europe destroy the lamentable and unfortunate effect which the

    1395
    doubtful opinion given by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General had already produced. Before resuming his scat he could not help alluding to an observation which had, as he conceived, been improperly made by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Marylebone (Mr. James). The hon. and learned Gentleman whilst anxious to attack the Solicitor General had endeavoured to cover the unpopularity which he felt would attach to the course he was taking by the never failing expedient of making an attack upon the Pope. Now, he asked hon. Members, whatever might be their prejudices or their feelings, was that a justifiable course to pursue? What were the words that he used? He said that the army under General Lamoriciere was to be used by the Pope to massacre his subjects. What right had the hon. and learned Gentleman to speak in such a manner of General Lamoriciere, a man who was known throughout Europe and throughout the world as one of the most gallant and distinguished soldiers on the face of the earth; a man whose whole career had been one of the most noble and most brilliant that any military man ever pursued, and who had gained the esteem, admiration, and affection of all those who had served under him; what right had the hon. and learned Gentleman to presume to speak of such a man in such language? There might be differences of opinion as to the Government of the Pope, there might be persons who complained of this thing or of the other, but no man, not even his greatest enemy, accused him of inhumanity or cruelty. Why, he commenced his reign with the proclamation of a general amnesty, and through its whole course his every act had been marked by the greatest benevolence. He was now forced to collect troops; and for what purpose? Had they read one of the proclamations of General Garibaldi, in which he summoned the Italian people to unite and deliver Umbria and other parts of the Papal territories from the dominion of the Pope? When the Pope found that there was an union of powerful forces against his small State, what could he do but gather together troops to resist them? That was his object, not to massacre his subjects, nor to ill-treat those whom he had always endeavoured to benefit, but to resist those foreign Filibusters who were coming thus ostentatiously to raise a rebellion in his States. That he believed to be the real fact, and the words which had
    1396
    been used by the hon. and learned Gentleman with regard cither to his Holiness or to General Lamoriciere were words which ought not to have been used by any Member of that House. The hon. and learned Member for Marylebone had also erroneously stated that the Foreign Enlistment Act was passed for the purpose of meeting such a case as that of certain Irishmen enlisting in the army of the Pope. Everybody knew that during the 17th century English subjects were in the habit of serving Foreign States. In the reign of George II., on account of the Jacobite conspiracy against the English Crown, it was found necessary to pass an Act for the purpose of preventing foreign enlistment; and in 1814, at the time of the peace, there was a Treaty made between England and Spain, one of the sections of which contained an engagement on the part of this country not to assist in any way the revolted provinces of Spain. In 1819 it was found that under the law of George II. English subjects, although not able to enlist in the Spanish army, might lawfully take service on the side of the revolted provinces. Mr. Canning considered that that was a breach of the Treaty of 1814, and an Act was passed for the simple purpose of making the prohibitory law include, not only enlistment in the army of any Foreign Prince, but enlistment in the service of anybody claiming to have any authority in a Foreign country. Undoubtedly English subjects had always been in the habit of taking service with Foreign States, and that, too, without any fault being found with them. When the present Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster was in the Home Office, be (Mr. Monsell) had made an application to him on the part of an English officer in the Austrian army, who wished to be allowed to get rid of his English naturalization. That application was refused, as being contrary to the law of this country; but the Home Secretary never dreamt of Sliding fault with the British officer for having enlisted in the Austrian army. Any attempt to prevent Irishmen from enlisting in the army of the Pope would be contrary to our usual policy, and especially contrary to the traditions of the Liberal party, who had always been opposed to the Foreign Enlistment Act. Hitherto it had not been the practice to prevent enlistment in the army of a friendly Power. His principal object in rising had been to protest against the unjust and ungracious attack which had been made by the hon. and learned Member

    1397
    for Marylebone upon the Pope and upon General Lamoriciere.
    MR. MALINSsaid, that the House owed a deep debt of gratitude to the hon. Member for King's County (Mr. Hennessy) for bringing this matter under their consideration, in order that any doubt which arose from the ambiguous expressions of the Solicitor General, in the incautious answer which he gave the other night to a question put to him on this subject might be explained. Perhaps that hon. and learned Gentleman would have done better had he candidly admitted his mistake than by the elaborate attempt he had made to prove that right which every lawyer present knew to be wrong. Had he frankly admitted his error, the House would have granted that indulgence which it never refused to any of its Members. Nothing could be more dangerous or erroneous than the doctrine which had been laid down by the hon. and learned Gentleman. The proposition submitted to him was, whether it was contrary to the law of England for a combination of foreigners to be established in this country to raise subscriptions for the purpose of making war against a friendly power. The hon. and learned Gentleman alleged that he had been asked whether any proceeding could be taken, but the real meaning of the question was whether such a proceeding would be lawful, and the Attorney General had given the weight of his great authority in entirely repudiating the doctrine laid down by his hon. and learned Colleague. He (Mr. Malins) was, however, bound to say that the anxiety of his hon. and learned Friend to screen his colleague had induced him to express himself with considerable ambiguity, and it was because the subject was still left in doubt that he wished to state what was the understanding on that, the Opposition side of the House, as to the state of the law. He made no complaint of the terms in which the Attorney General had laid down the law. He quite concurred in his definition, namely—that where any body of men combined—combined or conspired—for the purpose of raising money to make war, or to take hostile proceedings against a friendly power, it was contrary to the common law of England; but he deeply regretted when his hon. and learned Friend went on to raise a doubt whether that general principle was applicable to foreigners resident in this realm. Now, if the hon. and learned Gentleman really entertained any doubt upon that
    1398
    point, it was his duty to remove it without the loss of a single day, for surely nothing could be more just than that foreigners resident in this country, and enjoying the protection of our laws, should be bound to comply with them in all respects. On Saturday morning Inst, in taking up the morning paper, his eye was arrested by an Italian advertisement from a foreign body of gentlemen resident in England inviting subscriptions to be sent to a gentleman to whom they were all in the habit of listening in another capacity—one of the most eminent vocalists we had, Signor Mario. Signor Mario was the treasurer, to whom the subscriptions for the purpose of making war on Sicily were to be sent. It was not a question whether or not the Neapolitan Government was a government to be admired. There were many governments which we did not approve. But that which would be applicable to Russia, or France, or Prussia was equally applicable to the kingdom of Naples. Naples was not a great Power, but he should regret to hear it proposed in that House that they were to adopt one principle in relation to the great and powerful nations, and another to a nation that was not great and powerful. They must act on general principles, and he was sure that no Member of Her Majesty's Government would encourage the idea that one principle was to be adopted towards the Government of Naples and another principle towards France, or any other great Power of Europe. If the Government were to see an advertisement in the papers asking for subscriptions for an association formed for the purpose of raising subscriptions to put down the Government of the Emperor of the French how long would that be permitted to go on? The Attorney General had said that if the thing had been done by Englishmen there was no doubt as to what the law would be. If the hon. and learned Gentleman entertained any doubt as to what the law was with regard to foreigners, clearly it was his duty not to permit that doubt to remain another day. His (Mr. Malins') own opinion was that the common law of England, so accurately defined by the Attorney General, was equally applicable to natives and foreigners; but if the Attorney General thought the law of England on this point was at all dubious, it was his duty at once to take steps for the purpose of removing the anomaly, he wished to know what the Government intended to do. This was a moat important debate, and

    1399
    ought to end with a substantial result, Was it the intention of the Government to let such advertisements as the one under discussion be issued every day without interference; If they interfered they ought to do so without hesitation and without ambiguity; no doubt ought to be permitted to hang over their decision, and the law of the country ought to be plainly and distinctly stated. If it was an offence at common law it was indictable, and the Government could readily bring it to a test by preferring an indictment against those who issued the advertisements, unless they were discontinued. The Government would thus give an evidence of good faith towards other countries, and would show a repudiation of any intention to connive at any conspiracy to upset the Government of any other country. So also with regard to the Pope's Government, they were hound to observe the same strict neutrality. It was a question between the Pope and his subjects, whether the Romagna should remain with him or be handed over to the King of Sardinia. So far as they could collect the intentions of his Holiness, he desired now to make war with those who had been his own subjects and with Sardinia, and to raise troops in all parts of the world for the purpose of restoring the Romagna to his dominions. Adhering, therefore, to principles of strict neutrality they ought not to acquiesce in the Pope enlisting troops in Ireland, and he thought the hon. and learned Member for Marylebone had done quite right in calling the attention of the House to the subject.
    MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, that having had some experience in the understood, but unacknowledged arrangements of the House, he was sure the Speaker would excuse him when he said that no communication from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire, or from any one else by his authority, made to the Speaker with reference to himself (Mr. Newdegate), had his sanction. He mentioned this as an independent Member of the House, and as such he wished to call the attention of Her Majesty's subjects to the circumstance.
    MR. SPEAKER: I have received no communication from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire, nor from any individual in this House, with regard to the hon. Member.
    MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, he was exceedingly obliged to the Speaker for this announcement. He was only adverting to
    1400
    a matter of practice, and although others might submit to a party arrangement of the kind to which he had referred, he simply asked to be permitted to exercise the privilege of an independent Member. With regard to the question before the House, the hon. and learned Member for Marylebone (Mr. James) had very properly adverted to the enlistment that had taken place in Ireland for the service of the Pope; that subject had a direct hearing upon the question before the House. If blame attached to any person taking part in the one movement, for affording support to one party carrying on war abroad, it ought equally to attach to those supporting the other. He trusted therefore that if Her Majesty's Government acted on the suggestion to issue a proclamation prohibiting assistance being given to General Garibaldi, on whose undertaking he gave no opinion, they would proceed impartially in the matter, and not ignore any longer the movement in Ireland, promoted by persons holding authority in the Roman Catholic Church, for the enlistment of Her Majesty's subjects to serve the Pope. The Government could not forget the prompt manner in which the attempt made on the part of the English Government during the Crimean war to enlist American subjects was resisted in America, and he hoped they would not permit the agents of any Foreign Power to enlist within Her Majesty's dominions forces intended for the service of a Foreign Power making war for temporal purposes, although the head of that State was invested with spiritual authority. Not only were men being enlisted for the service of the Pope, but the days of Peter's Pence were revived—contributions were being exacted from Her Majesty's subjects under the name of a tax formally abolished by the Legislature of this country. This was no trifling matter. It was all very well for Members of the House to express indignation at what might be a rash undertaking by Garibaldi. That was a sudden movement, while the other was a protracted and organized system, and was, therefore, deserving of more attention. He had risen for the purpose of putting two questions upon this subject to Her Majesty's Government. The first was, whether it was consistent with the law of this country and with international law, that any man should levy money and men, or arms, for the service of a Foreign State within the United Kingdom, without the consent previously asked and obtained of Her Majesty's Go-

    1401
    vernment? The second was, whether Englishmen enlisting in a foreign service without such consent, did not, from the hour they entered that service and left this country, lose all claim to the rights of British subjects, and whether the consent of Her Majesty's Government not having boon given to their enlistment they did not stand in the position of pirates, and were not therefore at the mercy of any foe to whom they might he opposed, if captured? The Garibaldi affair was a matter of trifling importance in comparison to the Romish enlistment, to which his remarks had been directed. That was a question of serious importance.
    MR. BERNAL OSBORNE:—Sir, I am not about to enter into the question of enlistment in Ireland. That is not properly the question before the House. The original question was one calling attention to the reply given by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General respecting Garibaldi's expedition, and that to my mind appears the more serious matter. The House must feel that it has arisen from the very elaborate answer given the other evening by the Solicitor General, who has been universally thrown over by every lawyer in the House, and even by his own colleague the Attorney General. I must say, I heard that answer with great surprise, for it is no slight thing for the Solicitor General, by implication, to leave people out of doors to imagine that the subscription which has been so extensively advertised is a legal one. In one point, at any rate, this discussion has been useful—we have now ascertained from every lawyer that the subscription in aid of the Garibaldi expedition is strictly an illegal one. Whether it would be advisable on the part of the Government to prosecute, and whether they would get a conviction, is another question; but it is no doubt the place of the Government to give expression to their opinion on the subject in this House. If they are for the doctrines of non-intervention, of which I am a humble disciple, they ought to state that this is an illegal combination for assisting people in opposition to a Sovereign with whom we are on friendly terms. If we once give way to this sort of thing, on what ground can we complain of the conduct of America? Have I not heard hon. Gentlemen here using the strongest language with reference to General Walker? What was said about the attempt by American Filibusters some time ago to take the Havannah? Those
    1402
    are parallel instances, and if we are on every occasion to express our sympathies by subscriptions in opposition to Sovereigns with whom we are in amity, you may say what you like about the common law of England, but I am sure it is against all the principles of international law. These may not be popular sentiments, but I think they are such as ought properly to be entertained by an independent Member, who has no sympathy with Naples and much liking for the Sicilian cause, but who thinks, whatever his sympathies may be, that it is not right to truckle to mere out-of-doors feeling, and that he ought to lay down the position which he wishes this country to assume upon all occasions. Now, I wish on this subject to put a question to the noble Lord the Foreign Secretary. I have read in the newspapers with considerable surprise that the landing of Garibaldi's force at Marsala was greatly assisted by two English vessels. Whether that be true or not, I know the report is very prevalent on the Continent, because I have received communications from abroad stating that the fact clearly shows this country to be in favour of the expedition. On the Treasury bench this question has been narrowed down to the mere consideration of its legal bearing; but I think it is important that it should rest on some broader grounds. I think we ought to have a Minister of greater authority than the Law Officers of the Crown overthrowing one another, to tell us what truth there is in the statement, that the landing of the expedition has been mainly assisted by English vessels. With regard to the subscriptions, I believe there are many sympathizers with the Sicilian cause even in this House. I, perhaps, may sympathize, but my duty here is superior to my sympathy, and I certainly will not show that sympathy by breaking the law of my own country.
    The O'DONOGHUEsaid, the hon. Member who had just spoken had acknowledged a sympathy which he believed was participated in by many hon. Members in that House. It used to be held, however, that illegal acts only met with approval and sympathy in Ireland; but such a doctrine could now no longer be maintained. He had recently had the honour of presiding at two meetings, and of taking part in a third influential meeting, for the purpose of expressing sympathy with His Holiness the Pope. He had never done anything of which he felt so proud, and he was sure the

    1403
    House would agree with him that there was a great difference between assisting a legitimate Sovereign to maintain order in his dominions and assisting a rebel mob who were endeavouring to overthrow their legitimate Government. He hoped the Government would answer the question which had been repeatedly put to them, and would state what course they intended to take in this matter. Unless they did so this debate would have had a most unsatisfactory termination. As to the statement of the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. James) that those who were going from Ireland, if any were going, were proceeding to Italy in order to massacre the subjects of the Pope, he had no hesitation in saying that was a most unwarrantable calumny on the people of Ireland. He believed that if they were going it was with no such intention. He should not take upon himself to say whether these proceedings were contrary to the Enlistment Act or not; but he gave the most emphatic denial to the statement of the hon. and learned Gentleman.
    LORD JOHN RUSSELL: My hon. Friend (Mr. B. Osborne) has asked me a question respecting the landing of Garibaldi, and respecting two British ships which are said in certain telegrams to have protected the landing of these men. Now, I received today from the Admiralty the despatch of the officer commanding one of these vessels—the Intrepid. Hon. Gentlemen should be informed that there is a considerable amount of British property at Marsala, and that from the time when a rising in Sicily was expected, and still more from the time when the report was circulated that Garibaldi was going there, applications have been made both to the Foreign Office and to Admiral Fanshawe, who commands in the Mediterranean, to send ships for the protection of British property where British subjects were to be found. Admiral Fanshawe accordingly sent the Intrepid and the Argus to Marsala. The Intrepid arrived, I think, on the 11th, but had not been there long before two merchant steamers came in with Garibaldi's force and began to land it. Captain Marryatt, who was in command of the Intrepid, has written an account of the whole transaction to the Admiralty, and that has been transmitted to me. He states that when the two vessels wore going in, two Neapolitan ships of war—a steamer and a frigate—approached Marsala; but this officer says that, although these ships might have fired upon the vessels and
    1404
    upon the men during their landing, they did not do so. He does not say, not knowing anything of the story that has since been raised, that the English ships did not prevent the Neapolitan vessels from firing; but he says that, although they had the opportunity of firing upon the vessels and the men, they did not do so. He says, moreover, that after the men had been landed, and the merchant steamers had disembarked all the troops of Garibaldi, the officer in command of the Neapolitan steamer came to him and asked him to send an English boat to take possession of those vessels. The English officer, Captain Marryatt, very properly declined to do so. He had no instructions which authorized him to take possession of these vessels, or to take any part in those proceedings. His instructions were, as the conduct of the British Government has been, to observe perfect neutrality in the conflict that is going on. Therefore, although this officer does not give a direct denial—not knowing anything of its existence—to the allegation that his ships, being anchored, prevented the fire of the Neapolitan vessels, we may infer from his account of the transaction that such was not the case. It does appear that the Neapolitan captain asked him to recall from Marsala any of his officers who were on shore, and he immediately put up a signal for that purpose, and when his officers had come on board fire was opened on the town of Marsala by the Neapolitan ships. That should be considered as an act of international courtesy on the part of the Neapolitan captain, but it does not at all imply that the English ships were in the way of his fire. There is no reason to suppose that the English officer in any way exceeded his duty. He was there for the purpose of protecting British interests, and he did no more. I must now say a few words—and they shall be very few—upon the other point which has been so much discussed. I shall not of course, touch upon the question of law upon which hon. and learned Gentlemen on both sides have given us admirable disquisitions, but from which I cannot ascertain that in this particular case it would be wise for the Government to institute a prosecution. It is one thing to state the general purport of the law—and no one could do so with greater clearness and authority than my hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General—but it is quite another question whether, if the Government were to prosecute in a certain case, we asked him to state the proba-

    1405
    bility of obtaining a conviction. The hon. and learned Gentleman opposite (Mr. Malins) says, we ought immediately to prosecute the persons who put the advertisement into the paper. I am surprised that a lawyer should say that. What evidence have we of who it was that put that advertisement into the newspaper? We must first go to the printer of the newspaper and endeavour to obtain evidence of who had sent it, and then to connect them with the advertisement and the subscriptions.
    MR. MALINS: Names are given of persons by whom subscriptions will be received.
    LORD JOHN RUSSELL: There are names given by the printer of The Times newspaper, I allow, but I am not convinced that Signor Saffi, or others whose names appear, if they were asked by some one sent by the Attorney General, would at once admit that they desired their names to be given as the collectors of subscriptions to be expended in making war against the King of the Two Sicilies. I should think it would be necessary to prove all that, and to bring evidence to show that the printer of The Times did not wantonly and without authority use the names of Signor Saffi and others, or we should all be at the mercy of the printer of The Times, who might give the names of ad the Cabinet as contributors of large sums to be used in waging war against the King of the Two Sicilies. The hon. and learned Gentleman is a much better judge than I am of these matters; but if the Government were to prosecute in such cases they would have to ask the law officers as to the means of obtaining convictions. All I can say is, that I do not remember any case of successful prosecution of persons who had been subscribing for the purpose of maintaining insurrections or war in Poland or other countries. There is one country in regard to which I recollect that I myself, together with many distinguished persons, was guilty of such an act. I refer to the insurrection in Greece. We carried on our proceedings openly. I was a Member of a Committee which met, I think, at Lord Fitzwilliam's house in Grosvenor-square, and afterwards we went to a public meeting in the City. I did not find at that time there was any great zeal for prosecuting us, and certainly I never suffered any imprisonment in consequence of my connection with those proceedings. Therefore, the question of common law does not appear to be quite solved yet, and it re-
    1406
    quires much consideration before the Government can feel warranted in interfering. But, after all, there is much difference of opinion upon those points. Some say, "What a wicked thing it is to assist in waging war against the King of the Two Sicilies, and in exciting insurrection against his power!" But, then, other gentlemen say, "That is not so very bad, but it is a dreadful thing to go and assist the Pope. That is a crime indeed." But really when you consider these questions of insurrection and international law, you must separate them from each other. A movement such as that which Walker attempted in South America, when he sought to invade and to obtain possession of territory, with no higher object in view than his own selfish interests, is one case; but a patriot fighting for the independence of his country is quite another case. We know that our sympathies and the judgment of history will distinguish between the cases of the filibuster and felon, and that of the hero and the patriot. We all remember that we had once a great filibuster who landed in the month of November, 1688, on the south-west coast of England. He not only received considerable support, but all the people of England flocked around him. That filibustering was completely successful. These are cases in which it is not sufficient to say that Garibaldi is a man fighting against a Sovereign whom he ought to respect, or that the Pope is endeavouring to maintain his authority by unlawful expedients. It is not enough to say these things in a glib and fluent manner. These questions, whether taken as questions of law, or politics, or morals, require much examination before you can affix either moral blame or moral praise to those who are engaged in them. I certainly would not pledge the Government to undertake a prosecution in this case. Whenever we find that the plain law is openly outraged, it is our duty, undoubtedly, to see that it is enforced. That has been done frequently in cases of breach of the Foreign Enlistment Act; but even as to that statute we have found considerable difficulties in the way of our carrying it into effect. I will not bind myself by a general declaration of what is the common law to prosecute those who are raising subscriptions for the prosecution of such an enterprise as that which has been undertaken in the kingdom of Sicily.
    MR. WYLDsaid, that as the House was always willing to do justice to private cha-

    1407
    racter, he rose to state with reference to the "blasphemous proclamation" that had been attributed to Ricciardi, that that document had never been acknowledged by that patriot or his friends. With respect also to the statement that Garibaldi was a member of a secret society which sought to attain its objects by assassination, it was the peculiar characteristic of Garibaldi that he had never joined any secret society. The fact was, that he was too noble, generous, and chivalrous to engage in any dark intrigue for the promotion of his political aims.
    MR. MAGUIRE: The noble Lord has stated that the printer of The Times might take extraordinary liberties with the Cabinet, and might, in fact, publish the name of every Member of it as having aided and assisted Garibaldi. Now, Sir, if the printer of The Times bad done that, I do not by any means think he would have made an extraordinary mistake. I believe Her Majesty's Government have done everything in their power—it may be unconsciously—to foster discontent in the dominions of the King of the Two Sicilies, and, to a certain extent, to promote and encourage the present rebellion. More extraordinary despatches than those addressed by the noble Lord to the Government of an independent Sovereign, I suppose, no one ever read. The noble Lord sitting in the Foreign Office as a kind of European schoolmaster, has regularly "birched" the King of Naples; in fact, he has done everything in his power, by the language and tone of these despatches, to discredit his authority in his own dominions, and, by anticipation, has almost justified the present insurrection. The King of Naples has been compelled to take steps and adopt measure which may be called arbitrary and harsh; but, whatever their character, they were absolutely necessary in the state of things created by the machinations of those who were conspiring against his Government. Surely, that Sovereign, when he found conspiracies hatching in Naples, had a perfect right to turn the conspirators out of the country. If there were a conspiracy in Ireland to-morrow, with a treasonable object, the noble Lord at the head of the Government would just do what the King of Naples has done in his dominions; and I may remind hon. Gentlemen that the Government of this country was not very scrupulous, on a late occasion, in putting down a conspiracy which was described as foolish and ridiculous. The noble Lord, the
    1408
    Foreign Minister, lectures and denounces petty Sovereigns and feeble States, but he carefully abstains from extending his censures to powerful Sovereigns, like the Emperor of the French. The spirit in which the foreign policy of the Government is conducted is that of truckling and cowardice to great Powers, and tyranny and oppression to small Powers. The noble Lord is brave when he has to deal with the King of Naples or the Sovereign of Rome, but he blanches when he has to face the Emperor of France. What is the fact? That the most abominable conspiracy which the world has ever seen is now being carried out upon the soil of Italy. Two Royal robbers—I can call them nothing else—pretending to be moved by the cries of "distressed nationalities," but really thinking only of their own aggrandisement, entered into an infamous engagement to strip certain Sovereigns of their dominions; and all the confusion and horror that reign at this moment in Italy, as well as all the evil results to the peace of Europe which may follow, are owing, and will be owing, to the infamous machinations of these kingly robbers. I am perfectly justified in believing that the robbery which has been perpetrated of a portion of the States of the Pope, of the Austrian possessions in Lombardy, and of the dominions of the Dukes, and the subsequent division of booty between these unscrupulous potentates, originated in a base personal compact between them. To what extent has this course been sanctioned by Her Majesty's Government?—and how far have the principles enunciated by Her Majesty's Government given countenance to those spoliations? Why, Her Majesty's Government have declared that it is lawful for any portion of the subjects of a legitimate Sovereign to rise up against him, cast off his authority, and transfer their allegiance to any other State or Power. Let you make it your own case. On the same principle the people of Cornwall or Devon, or the people of Wales, may throw off the yoke of the Queen, and may, by universal suffrage, express their discontent with Her Government, and their determination to be free and independent, or to transfer their allegiance to the Emperor of the French. And why, in that ease, should not the Emperor listen to the cry of a "distressed nationality?" And, I ask, if such a case as this did occur, what real difference would there be to the throwing off and transfer of their allegiance by the Pope's subjects

    1409
    in the Legations. Garibaldi has been spoken of as an illustrious patriot, and by many more such high-sounding epithets; but who are his accomplices, who his associates? Why the very scum of Italy—bandits and assassins, leagued together by ties of blood; and among the foremost of them is one whose deeds have been chronicled in the work of Farini, well known to its distinguished translator, the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Gladstone). Judging Zambianchi by his acts, he is proved to be an infamous villain, a sacrilegious robber, and a blood-stained assassin of the darkest hue. I shall tell the House something of this Zambianchi, who is now one of the associates of Garibaldi in his efforts to liberate Italy. He had been, before the breaking out of the rebellion of 1848, a Custom-house officer, whose duties lay at some point on the frontier of the Papal dominions. He was an infidel and a vagabond, who feared neither God nor man; but because he was an enemy of the Pope, he was, therefore, like all the Pope's enemies, a hero and a patriot. Let the House understand how this noble character, this enlightened friend of freedom, vindicated his principles and endeavoured to enforce them upon others. During the rebellion he assisted in arresting those who sought to fly from the confusion and anarchy then reigning at Rome and throughout the Papal States; and if those whom he arrested held opinions different from his own, and if he could not bring them round to his views by such mild arguments as threats and intimidations, he usually settled the controversy by the dagger or the pistol. The presence of so illustrious a patriot was naturally required in Rome, where he found a wide field of action for his zeal for free institutions. Priests and monks were the objects of his special care. He arrested them whenever he had an opportunity, and brought them to San Calisto, when he imprisoned them. There he shot some, stabbed others, starved more to death, and murdered others by piecemeal, burying them up to their chins in the earth, and gloating over their agony. Such were the scandal and horror, even in that time of licence, excited by the atrocities of this fiendish miscreant, that the revolutionary Government were eventually compelled to interfere, and put an end to his atrocious barbarities; and that interference saved eight or nine clergymen, who were found in his dungeon, and who undoubtedly would have been slaughtered as
    1410
    some hundred others had been. I have myself spoken to persons in Rome who had a narrow escape from the daggers of Zambianchi and his band of assassins. But, perhaps, it may be said this miscreant did not act so badly after all, because he had only raised his hands against a Catholic Sovereign, and that Catholic Sovereign the Pope. [Cries of "Oh!" and "No!"] What is the use of hon. Gentlemen saying "oh," when they constantly cheer every sentiment that breathes an opposite opinion or an opposite principle? I ask, what right has this Government, which we are assured is maintaining a "strict neutrality" in Italy, to interfere in an insurrection against the Pope? Is not this neutral Government always interfering? Because the Government of the King of Naples is a Catholic Government, rebellion in Sicily and Naples receives every encouragement from the Government of this country; and with respect to the Pope, Her Majesty's Ministers are constantly in the habit of declaring opinions and making statements most dangerous and damaging to the authority of the Sovereign Pontiff, but which, I may add, they dare not utter in reference to the Emperor of the French. When the King of Naples exercised his kingly authority, in order to prevent rebellion from breaking out, he was, of course, guilty of cruelty; but when the Emperor of the French acts as the King of Naples has done, is there the same ready rebuke from the noble Lord and his Colleagues in the Cabinet? Why, I ask, docs the noble Lord do that to the King of Naples which he does not do to the Emperor of the French? The noble Lord may say, of course, as he has said before, that the Emperor went to Italy to give liberty to her people. Was there ever a more monstrous 'humbug' than that? [ironical laughter, and cries of "Hear, hear!"] I repeat, was there ever a more monstrous "humbug" than to assert or pretend that one of the most consummate despots that the world has over seen went to Italy for such a purpose? Is it consistent with reason or probability that the Emperor Napoleon crossed the Alps to confer on Italy a free press and representative institutions? Do they exist in France? But has the noble Lord ever attempted to rebuke the Emperor because they do not exist in his dominions? Nay, when the people were shot down in the streets of Paris at the time of the coup d'etat, did any rebuke of the brutal atrocities perpetrated on that occasion come from the English Government?

    1411
    Was there not, on the contrary, an expression of sympathy with Louis Napoleon from one whose name was almost synonymous with encouragement to revolution throughout the world? ["Oh, oh!" and "Hear, hear!"] Is this really a slander against the noble Lord (Viscount Palmerston)? But certainly we have never heard of any formal expression of disgust or horror at the atrocities which were then perpetrated in Paris. I say, Sir, gentlemen should be careful in laying down and sanctioning revolutionary principles, for no man knows how soon they may be turned against yourselves. If you had a quarrel to-morrow with Prance, I cannot sec why Louis Napoleon, whoso large heart throbs with compassion for "distressed nationalities," may not fancy that he heard "a cry of agony" come from Cork, or Kerry, or Connemara; I cannot see why, according to established precedent, the plaint of that afflicted nation may not move his tender heart, and stimulate his love of universal liberty. Why should he not land some 30,000 or 50,000 sympathisers with liberty and promoters of large and liberal institutions on the shores of Ireland? You should be cautious. I, as an Irishman, would be one of the first to repel such an attempt on the part of France, for I abhor the man, and I detest his rule; and much as I am disposed to find fault with the Government of England in its dealings with Ireland, I solemnly believe it would be one of the deadliest calamities which God could permit to afflict any country, if that man, or a single soldier that fights under his flag, set a hostile foot upon its shores. Sir, I desire that we in this country should be preserved from the machinations of a man so reckless and so unscrupulous; and I, therefore, ask Gentlemen to pause before they sanction principles which they may ere long find dangerous to their own interests. We ought to be the last, as the friends of true liberty, to encourage every rascally filibuster, every foul assassin, who is now seeking to promote his own private aims and objects under the auspices of two royal robbers, whose names will be branded with infamy when the history of these times is written.
    MR. DANBY SEYMOURsaid, he rose to express his surprise at the speech of the noble Lord the Foreign Secretary, and, in reference to that speech, he would first mention a conversation which he heard on the bench near him a few minutes ago. One hon. Member said to a friend who sat
    1412
    near him, "Of course, you are in favour of non-intervention?" and the reply was, "Of course I am." The conversation then continued in these terms: "What do you think of Lord John's view of the Sicilian insurrection?" and the reply was, "I think he is holding a candle to it." He thought himself that the noble Lord had taken up too decided an opinion on this question. The noble Lord certainly had held out very strong encouragements to those who were willing to assist General Garibaldi.
    LORD JOHN RUSSELL: I beg the hon. Gentleman's pardon; I gave no opinion at all, either for or against the attempt. I said that all these cases must be judged by different gentlemen according to their own views and opinions; but I gave no opinion whatever.
    MR. DANBY SEYMOUR: If I understood the noble Lord aright, he compared Garibaldi to our William III., and the landing in Sicily to 1688.
    LORD JOHN RUSSELL: I compared General Walker with William III. landing in England.
    MR. DANBY SEYMOURsaid, that was certainly such an analogy as he should have least expected to hear from the noble Lord—a comparison of General Walker with William III. But he thought, and he believed many other hon. Gentlemen were under the same impression, that the tone of the noble Lord's speech was to encourage the Sicilian insurrection. He was certainly glad to bear that the noble Lord did not allow such to have been his intention, because he thought the position of this country should be one of non-intervention. If there was any country in the world that lived in a glass-house it was our own; and if we encouraged filibusters, or any persons who believed that they were invading a country in order simply to better its government, we might have those doctrines turned against ourselves. It seemed to him that it was a matter entirely of private judgment. Many persons considered that General Garibaldi, if he succeeded, would better the condition of the Sicilians; but that in the case of General Walker, he would not have done so. He (Mr. Danby Seymour) quite agreed with those who thought that Garibaldi, if he succeeded in Sicily, and if he was able to form a stable government there, might very easily set up something better than the Neapolitan Government. But when they considered the great difficulties that must arise if Garibaldi succeeded in abstracting Sicily from the

    1413
    rule of Naples, and the European complications which must ensue upon that event, perhaps their best wishes might he directed to seeing a better Government in Sicily without that island being taken from those who were at present its lawful Sovereigns.

THE DEFECTIVE GUNBOATS.

  QUESTION.
  SIR FREDERIC SMITHsaid, he rose to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty, If he has any objection to discontinue the breaking up of the defective Gunboats until a full opportunity shall have been afforded for thoroughly examining into their state under the direction of a Select Committee, should it be appointed? A Motion of his own in reference to these gunboats had been postponed until the following Tuesday; and if it were true, as had been stated, that such boats were in the course of being broken up, then his Motion would fall to the ground. The breaking them up would get rid of one great menus of forwarding a prosecution should such a step be deemed necessary, and he was, therefore, very desirous that the Government should give orders to suspend any attempt to break up any of these vessels or to repair or alter those which were not in so bad a slate, in order that a Committee might have the means of ascertaining where the fault lay, and to what extent the injury had gone. The other evening the noble Lord the Secretary to the Admiralty was asked to name the contractors by whom the boats were built—a question which he, with his usual good taste and judgment, declined to answer. But since then the respectable firm of the Messrs. Green had come forward and publicly stated in the newspapers that they were the constructors of a largo number of the boats stated to be imperfect; and they admitted the use of unseasoned timber, and, to a certain extent, that of short bolts. If their statement was as correct as he hoped it was, with respect to the extent to which short bolts had been used, the mischief was not so great as had been imagined. The letter of Messrs. Green gave the strongest reason why there should be a Committee of Inquiry, and why the work of demolishing the boats should not be further proceeded with. They said:—
  "As to the vessels being defective, we are not surprised, as many of them were built of unseasoned timber, although the best that could be got at the time, and the air excluded when they were hove up out of the water at Haslar, instead of having a plank taken out fore and aft for ventilation, which ought to have been done."
  1414
  Any man who knew anything about ships would see the force of this observation. They then proceeded:—
  "With regard to the short bolts, we beg to state that during the progress of the work we were pushed very hard by the Admiralty to complete our contract, and even threatened with legal proceedings if behind time, which compelled us to employ a largo number of strange shipwrights, who worked very often night and day, and it would, therefore, be impossible for us or the Government inspector to be answerable that every bolt was properly driven. It is admitted by the Admiralty, in their report, that 2,202 bolts were properly driven through; and we maintain, as shipbuilders, that planks fastened with one through bolt in every other timber, with a short one between, are quite sufficient to secure the safety of any vessel of war. Lloyd's require one through bolt and one short bolt in every butt, and not less than half of the trenails to be driven through, in building their highest class ships, calculated to carry heavy cargoes; and, should the ship be copper-fastened, they require only one half of the bolts to be through bolts, and all the rest short holts. We complain of the Admiralty for not giving the contractors longer time to build these vessels, and for not having a larger staff of inspectors to superintend the work, and also for not taking proper care of them after they were duly delivered up into the charge of their authorities, according to contract, with the necessary certificates."
  He thought that those allegations were matters for inquiry, and therefore he was anxious that the best evidence in the case—that of the boats themselves—should not be put out of the way. He hoped the noble Lord would be able to give him the assurance that the destruction of these boats would be immediately stopped.
  SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONEsaid, he had hitherto forborne to offer his opinion upon this subject, for he lad hoped that the matter would take some tangible form, and the question have been put on a footing which would be productive of some advantage to the country. These vessels were defective in every possible form; and as they formed a species of defence which had become of the very greatest importance to this country, he thought that if his hon. Friend persevered in his Motion for a Committee of Inquiry into their state, he ought also to add that that Committee should inquire into the whole question us to how that arm of the public service could be best supplied. He would not on that occasion enter into the personal question. It was necessary, during the Russian war, to construct a force of gunboats speedily, and, as the means of providing seasoned timber was wanting, the Government was compelled to take what they could get, and they built certain vessels of a new description,

  1415
  which, to some extent, answered their purpose. Having said this he had said all he could in their favour; and he would add that he thought that the much more sagacious course would have been for the Government, at the end of the war, to have dispensed with these vessels altogether, and to have directed that vessels of a more suitable character should be constructed. There were one hundred and fifty of these gunboats, and they constituted a description of force and a means of defence which were rendered requisite by the preparations going on elsewhere. But the existing gunboats could neither steam nor sail. They could not carry their guns in heavy weather, and they were incapable of moving from one point of the coast to the other, when they were required. If he supported this assertion, he thought it clear that one great object of the Committee should be to inquire and ascertain what a gunboat really ought to be. A friend of his, a short time ago, fitted out a gunboat for a distant colony, and the gentleman to whom he alluded being an officer of great intelligence, he (Sir J. Elphinstone) asked him to let him know what were the performances of his vessel. The communication he received was the following:—
  "I can sum up the good qualities in one short sentence—she is an excellent seaboat and stays well; beyond this, I cannot add a word in her praise; and her defects would fill a sheet of foolscap. She will neither sail nor steam, and draws eight feet six; maximum speed about five-and-half—we once obtained seven and eight, with a gale on the quarter. She cannot steam under any circumstances for more than twenty-four hours without stopping to 'sweep tubes,' and with any head breeze or sea her rate may be represented by the minus quantity. She cannot generate steam sufficient to maintain a regular speed of five knots even for more than six hours at a time. She leaks like a sieve. So badly were the boards under the stoke-hole plates fitted that the ashes readily found their way into the bilges, choked the pumps, and continually, on our passage out, obliged us to stop, when under steam, to take them to pieces. The suction pipes of these pumps were so miraculously placed as to be totally unserviceable except the ship was on an exactly even line. These two defects have been remedied at Rio, at an expense of £37, which might have been done in a home yard for £5. Sic transit argentum Angliœ. Moral—which fully accounts for the income tax. The magazine has generally from one to two inches of water in it, and the bilges, notwithstanding the most careful attention, stink to such a Thames-like degree as fairly to drive me a wanderer and a fugitive from my cabin, the paint in which was turned in a few hours from white to a slimy looking chocolate. On the passage out I was obliged to sling and sleep under the mizen boom in fine weather; and in foul I used to draw my waterproof around me and doze for the night
  1416
  in a chair. As for my cabin, I never went near it—could not—except to dress in a morning or bolt my meals. Everything I had in it has been completely spoiled, stock and clothes. One-half the ship's company only can sling their hammocks, the other spend the night in crawling on to bins and rolling off again."
  This was an account of a gunboat on service, making her way to the point where she was to defend the honour of the country. He would give the House another instance. He was on board one of Her Majesty's ships at Spithead last week, and when he left the ship the wind was blowing fresh from the cast. To come on shore he availed himself of one of these gunboats, and they arrived in safety opposite South Sea Castle. The tide was running to the eastward at about four knots, and, as had said, the wind was blowing half a gale from the east. With a handy vessel, without steam at all, the wind would have carried her over the tide. But this vessel, with all the steam she could muster, could not stem the tide, and after all kinds of efforts she got on the top of one of the buoys and could not get clear of it. At last, after sticking for twenty-five minutes in one place, with all the ladies and gentlemen looking at them from the Esplanade, they were obliged to land in small boats. He went down to the beach an hour or two afterwards, and the gunboat was still in the same place, and there was no difference, except that they had let go her anchor because she could not stem the tide. He inquired whether the boat was inferior to the rest of her class, and the answer he got was that this particular vessel was one of Her Majesty's advanced steam reserve, the Beaver, and that she was understood to be so efficient that she was used for the purpose of taking the officers backwards and forwards. He would appeal to his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Devonport (Sir Michael Seymour), if he were present, to say whether, in transporting these gunboats from Hong Kong to the Nore last year, he was not obliged to take the guns out of them. One of these gunboats, thus not having a gun on board, but only two howitzers to defend herself, was attacked by three or four piratical vessels, and only saved by the extreme gallantry of the young lieutenant who commanded her. The mistake made by the Admiralty was in not selling these vessels out of the service at the close of the Russian war. They would have made very good coasters, and their engines, being high pressure, might have answered very

  1417
  well for thrashing corn. Instead of doing that, however, the mischief had been perpetuated by the creation of that most extraordinary establishment, the gunboat stable at Haslar. There were forty or fifty gunboats there laid up in a row like horses in a stable, dependent for the means of getting them afloat on a very complicated screw, and the slightest derangement of that machinery would lock them up, so that they might as well be in Winchester Gaol. Such was the strange contrivance of a First Lord of the Admiralty to keep these useless vessels; but the precaution of removing a plank from the bow, and another from the stern of each vessel, to secure internal ventilation was omitted; the timbers were neither kyanized nor subjected to any process to prevent the growth of fungus, and so they had rapidly decayed. Every naval man must perceive the absurdity of the course that had been adopted. He, therefore, recommended the House to institute an inquiry into the whole subject of small vessels, for that was an arm of our navy which, in future was, would be of the greatest advantage if it were properly cared for. His opinion was that the form of these vessels should be entirely altered. In the next war an Armstrong gun might he put aboard each of the penny steamboats on our river; he would undertake in a forenoon to fit one of those boats for the purpose. We should then have vessels of the highest speed under steam carrying guns which could throw shot or shell an immense distance; and those vessels moving with great rapidity, and being painted with a tint which could not be distinguished from the colour of the water a thousand yards off, it would be very difficult to hit them. Such should be the vessels to which we might confide the defence of our shores, and not to those miserable things of which he had given no exaggerated description, and which would be certain to fail us in the hour of need.
  LORD CLARENCE PAGETsaid, his hon. and gallant Friend had given them a very graphic description of the defects of the gunboats, and he (Lord C. Paget) was not going to attempt to defend them or to state that they were perfect in all respects. But the best proof he could give that these gunboats were not thought to be perfect by the Admiralty was that the gunboats now in course of construction were built of a very superior form, and would carry a very superior armament to that of the gunboats which had been built at the
  1418
  time which had been alluded to. He agreed with his hon. Friend in what he thought as to the lamentable exposé which had happened at Portsmouth. With respect to these vessels, all he could say was that the Government was not in the act of breaking them up, and this applied particularly to those which were alluded to in the Motion. The moment in which the Admiralty found the very defective state in which they were, they ordered them to be loft in that state, so as to allow the contractors to sec their state, and also with a view to ulterior measures, if any should be adopted. As to the mortar boats at Chatham, he apprehended that it was too late to prevent their being broken up, for by this time the work was in a very forward state; but with regard to the other vessels, no doubt the Admiralty would leave them as they were until it was ascertained what course should be pursued.
  SIR CHARLES NAPIERsaid, he fully concurred in the opinion that this was a subject which could not be too often discussed. It was a most important question, for on it depended the lives of our seamen and the defences of the country. He did not blame the Admiralty for having built the gunboats, because they were urgently demanded at a period of emergency. But, as to the manner in which they had been built, Mr. Green had let the "cat out of the bag," and it appeared that the Admiralty were as much to blame as the contractors. Mr. Green alleged that the Admiralty did not provide a sufficient number of inspectors to look after the contractors, although, as the work was carried on during the night, instead of fewer there should have been more of these officers in attendance than usual. The hon. and gallant Member for Portsmouth had said very truly that these gunboats were unfit for any service but that for which they were originally intended—to make short voyages, not far from our own shores, and to act on an enemy's coast. If we were to go on building these small craft, we ought to build a very different sort of vessel. He hardly thought it would he safe to trust so important a matter in the hands of the Admiralty as at present constituted, seeing that their previous efforts had proved such complete failures. How could it be otherwise in a department ruled by a civilian, who knew nothing whatever about naval matters, with a Board appointed chiefly for political reasons, and with but little regard to professional merit? He could hardly recollect

  1419
  single naval man of eminence and distinguished talent who had ever had a seat at the Board of Admiralty. Sir Thomas Hardy was the best of them. [An hon. MEMBER: Sir George Cockburn.] Well, he owned Sir George Cockburn was a distinguished officer; but during the whole eighteen years that he was at the Admiralty scarcely a single improvement took place. In the War Department there were the Adjutant General, the Quartermaster General, and their respective deputies, who could be employed to inquire into anything that went wrong and prepare a report on the subject. But the services of no similar officers were at the disposal of the Admiralty, although in the case of the recent mutinies they would have been found of great value. When the Admiralty wished to make an inquiry into any irregularity on the spot where it occurred, so many of their Lordships went down in their yacht, which was very beautifully fitted up and well stocked with wine, and enjoyed themselves as though they were a mere party of pleasure. He would suggest that the offices of Rear Admiral and Vice Admiral of England should no longer be allowed to remain sinecures. The Senior Lord of the Admiralty ought to fill the office of Rear Admiral, and the next Lord that of the Vice Admiral. They could then visit the dockyards, inspect the ships and the works, and examine everything for themselves. They might then, perhaps, be able to instil some sound ideas into the head of a non-professional First Lord. He was aware that civilians were in the habit of retorting that the business of the Admiralty had never been conducted more efficiently when a sailor was at the head of it. The Administration of Lord St. Vincent had been subjected to a good deal of criticism. Now, Lord St. Vincent entered upon the duties of First Lord at a time when the fleet was in a deplorable state, but he succeeded in re-establishing discipline. He wished we had another like him to re-establish discipline now, for it bad almost disappeared in our navy. He feared that as long as the navy was governed as at present no true economy would over be secured. It was startling to look back on the various classes of vessels which, after having been constructed at great cost had been abandoned as useless. First there were the notorious "Forty Thieves," and then the "donkeys," which wore made use of when the frigates were found to be failures. Lord Spencer's gunboats, called after his dogs,
  1420
  came next, followed in succession by Sir W. Symonds's vessels, the iron vessels and the gunboats, which he agreed with his gallant Friend opposite had better be broken up. The slip at Haslar was invented by a civil Lord of the Admiralty, who did not, it was said, consult his Board at all on the subject, and his gallant Friend had shown them what sort of a job he bad made of it, and how quickly the 70 vessels hauled up there had gone to decay. There really ought to be a Committee of Inquiry into the whole question of the government of the navy.
  ADMIRAL WALCOTT: I have refrained from taking any part in the discussion upon the defective state of the gunboats, because my noble Friend the Secretary to the Admiralty has acted in my belief with the greatest fairness. He has promised that every effort to bring the builders of the unseaworthy vessels to punishment will be made by the Admiralty, and, should they fail in doing this, that he himself would move for a Committee of inquiry. No man could do more than this. I think the noble Lord has acted with propriety in withholding the names of the contractors who built the defective vessels, pending the conclusion of the examination into the condition of the greater number. We must bear in mind that these gunboats were required during a great emergency, when it was indispensable that no time should be lost in their construction; the contracts were offered, in the first instance, at £20 a ton; the contractors avowed that it was impossible to find seasoned wood, the Admiralty were apprized of the fact, and, if the Board was satisfied, upon inquiry, with this statement, they were justified under the extreme exigencies of the occasion, in directing that kind of timber to be employed. Still it is, apparently, an extraordinary fact that all the large private yards could not supply a sufficient amount of seasoned wood to build one hundred such vessels; in that case the Admiralty would be justly censured if it had not insisted on its employment at any cost. The honour and reputation of the country, and the lives of officers and men might have been endangered owing to the defective construction of these vessels, I, therefore, cannot command language sufficiently strong to express my abhorrence of the manner in which these gunboats were launched for service. The contractors, in their defence, plead the shortness of time allowed by the Government for the completion of these vessels, and the necessity laid upon

  1421
  them of employing shipwrights with whom they were unacquainted, and whoso honesty and character they were unable to rely. I cannot believe that the contractors were themselves guilty in the face of knowing that their reputation was at stake, and that one day the truth would be elicited. Any miscreant with a chisel and hammer could cut off the bolt-ends in the dead of the night without fear of detection, and dispose of the metal to the marine store dealers. I will not breathe one word of censure against any man without previous inquiry, and I understand the Admiralty has instituted proceedings of that nature to discover the persons worthy of blame, which, I am afraid, will be a task of extreme difficulty. All the Government yards were at the period actively engaged in preparing vessels for sea, when the war was at its height, and I cannot believe that it was in the power of the Surveyor of the Navy to send two or three persons to each of the private yards to oversee the works during their progress. I always believed that these gunboats would prove of no value, and I have some consolation in thinking that now they will give place to a superior class of vessels.

CIVIL SERVICE ESTIMATES.

  QUESTION.
  MR. AUGUSTUS SMITHsaid, he rose to ask the Secretary to the Treasury when it is intended to proceed with the Civil Service Estimates; how soon No. VII. of those Estimates will be laid upon the table of the House, and whether the same will contain an Estimate for the Expenditure of the Commissioners of Woods and Forests during the current year? The hon. Member reminded the House that four months had elapsed since the commencement of the Session, and expressed an opinion that, of late, forty or fifty items were included in No. 7, many of which might very well appear in Nos. 4 and 6.
  MR. LAINGsaid, he should he very glad to be able to reply to the first question, but he was sorry to say that the period when the Civil Service Estimates would be taken must depend upon the course of public business, over which he had manifestly no control. It would be necessary before Whitsuntide to ask the House for a Vote on account of those Estimates, as was done last year, and they would be proceeded with on the earliest opportunity of which the state of public business would admit. No. 7 contained those Miscellaneous Votes
  1422
  which could not be ascertained until a late period of the Session, and that class was never presented until late, in order to obviate the necessity of Supplementary Votes. The papers would certainly be presented, and in the hands of hon. Members, so as to give time for consideration at least equal to that which had been the usual practice. With regard to the expenditure of the Woods and Forests, that involved a very grave constitutional question. In 1857 a Committee which inquired into the subject recommended that the salaries should be voted, but not the expense of collecting the revenue, which was settled by the Act by which the Civil List was given to the Sovereign in substitution of it. The Committee of 1857 also pointed out the constitutional difficulty of departing from that course, and it was not the intention of the Government to undertake a responsibility which two Committees admitted was not free from difficulty. The Woods and Forests Estimates would therefore be submitted in the usual form.
  MR. DISRAELI: Sir, I have no wish to prolong this discussion, but I must say a few words as to the practice which the hon. Secretary to the Treasury has just adverted to—that of voting money on account. I quite agree that there are occasions on which it may be expedient to have recourse to that practice; but I hope it will not become chronic, and that the House will seriously consider before it consents to take this course. The Government may be able to state very fair reasons for it on the present occasion, but the proposition is one which the House of Commons ought to view with great suspicion. It is, in fact, a mode by which all real examination into the expenditure of the country is prevented, and, without referring more particularly to the present case, I wish generally to impress on the House that it is of great importance that this proceeding should be looked on as one of extraordinary character, and one which if persisted in will virtually dispossess this House of all practical control over the expenditure. I am totally unaware what are the circumstances which can justify the Government to make this demand on us. No doubt, the statement which they have to make may be perfectly satisfactory, but, if this demand is only made on us to enable them to go on with business in which the House and the country do not appear to take any great interest, whereas the I expenditure of the country must always be

  1423
  a matter of general interest, I shall view the proposal with feelings not of a character to make me too eager to saction it.

CHINESE CUSTOMS.—QUESTION.
MR. WYLDsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether the Earl of Elgin, while at Tientsin, made any arrangements with the Chinese authorities for the appointment of Foreign Inspectors of Customs at the open Ports, and reserved the right of filling eleven such appointments; and if so, why the correspondence relating to those appointments was not printed in the Blue Book of his Mission; if there is any objection to lay this Correspondence upon the Table of the House, together with the Despatch from Lord Elgin announcing the appointment to the Chinese Customs of the Secretary to his Lordship's Embassy; and if there is any objection to lay upon the Table of the House Copies of the Correspondence from Mr. Bruce on the subject of the Chinese Customs' Foreign Inspectorship, especially as regards the Ports of Canton and Swatow?
LORD JOHN RUSSELLsaid, there was no such Correspondence in regard to the appointment of foreign inspectors of Customs, as far as Lord Elgin was concerned, to be found in the Foreign Office. There had been a correspondence with Mr. Bruce on the subject, but as it related chiefly to the objections raised by the American Minister at Canton it would not be right to give it. There had been no correspondence with regard to the appointment of Lord Elgin's secretary to any office connected with the Chinese Customs. The system now at work at Canton and Shanghai was understood to work satisfactorily, but it was not at work at Swatow, because the trade was not opened there. No doubt, however, it would be established there when the trade was opened.
Question, "That this House will, at the rising of the House this day, adjourn till Monday next," put, and agreed to.

REFRESHMENT-HOUSES AND WINE LICENCES BILL.—COMMITTEE.
Order for Committee read.
House in Committee.
Clause 12. (Notice of First Application for a Wine Licence for a Refreshment House to be given to Justices, who may object to the granting thereof on grounds to be stated.)
MR. AYRTONsaid, it would be difficult to carry out the clause as it stood, and he would suggest that, unless objection were made, the licence applied for should be issued in due form of law; and a proviso might be added that where notices of objection had been given, the justices should make their decision within ten days.
MR. HUNTthought that the objection to the applicant should be raised at one meeting of the Bench and decided at the next.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he could not consent to this proposal. In deference to the feeling of the Committee the Government had given way respecting the Middlesex magistrates, who, it now appeared, would not meet above five or six times a year—a circumstance which would be extremely unjust to the parties. In all cases in which there were no objections raised by the magistrates, thirty days' notice was full and ample; he admitted, however, that where objections were raised some extension of the notice was necessary. What he proposed was this, that in ease objection was taken, the magistrates should have the power to signify the same to the supervisor, transmit to him the objection, and then that a new term of thirty days' notice should begin running from that date, and until after the expiration of which the licence should not be issued.
MR. WOODDsaid, he only knew of one case in which the Sessions were held monthly; and there it was impossible that a longer interval than twenty-eight days could elapse between the sittings.
MR. PULLERsaid, in places where it had been only usual to hold Sessions monthly, the operation of the Bill would necessitate more frequent meetings of magistrates for the granting of wine licences. He regarded the existing machinery as preferable to any which would be created under the Bill; but the magistrates' power of taking objections ought to be limited or defined.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he thought that the term of sixty days, in case of objection being taken, was quite sufficient. If the plan proposed by hon. Gentlemen were adopted five or six months would elapse before a person could be sure of getting a licence.
MR. HENLEYsaid, the further they proceeded with the Bill the greater were the difficulties which arose. For his own part, he should decline to give any opinion on this clause until he had seen it in the

1425
shape in which the numerous additions and Amendments of the Chancellor of the Exchequer would place it. It had already been once completely altered, and now the Chancellor of the Exchequer was going to add a new proviso to it. Until they saw it in its complete shape it was impossible to judge of its practicability. It was quite true that most Petty Sessions met more than once a month, and many even every fortnight, but the fact was, it would take so many of these meetings before anything satisfactory could be done, The Chancellor of the Exchequer seemed to him to have an idea that having given notice to a magistrate's clerk, the magistrates, when they came together, were to have a kind of intuitive knowledge of every man's character in the district. Magistrates, however, could only obtain that knowledge by inquiry, and inquiries required an outlay not only of time but of money. Then, again, the caveat was to be served. Who was to pay for all this? Somebody must be paid for making inquiries, or the inquiries would be of very little use. It was not to be expected that magistrates were to go poking their noses into every hole and corner. Some machinery must be set on foot to get the required information; somebody would have to ferret the matter out and to report to the magistrates what they thought worthy of stating. He should not offer any opposition to the clause, but the sooner they could have it before them in the shape in which the Government proposed to leave it the better it would be, because they could then all see whether it would be likely to work or not.
MR. EDWIN JAMESsaid, he rose to move the Amendment of which he had given notice on the 12th clause. The Bill, as it at present stood, would create a great anomaly. It gave the magistrates the power of refusing or placing a veto on the licence of a winehouse; but that veto was limited to two grounds of objection. He proposed to ask the sanction of the Committee to an Amendment which would give the magistrates the same power of refusing a licence to a winehouse they now possessed with regard to ordinary public-houses. If it was right to take from the magistrates all control over public-house licences, let it be done by a distinct Bill; if it was wrong that they should possess this power over the new wineshops, it must also be wrong that they should exercise it over the common public-houses. If the
1426
power was left to them over one class of houses, and not over the other, the law would be rendered impracticable and perfectly ridiculous. The establishments which the Bill would create would combine all the elements of the old public-house; they might combine the eating-house with a beer licence; and then a wine licence might be added to it. This would make the new wineshop, to all intents and purposes, a public-house; for no one knew better than the right hon. Gentleman that spirits would be privately sold at them. But these establishments were to be licensed by the Excise department; the magistrates would have no power of judging whether the requirements of a neighbourhood rendered such houses necessary. Yet the Bill made a concession of this power of deciding according to the requirements of a locality to the Chancellors and authorities of the two Universities. The number of young men attending the lectures of the London University and King's College was large; and there was the whole youth of the Metropolis to be considered. If the controlling power was retained to the heads of the two Universities from consideration of the young men residing in them, why should not the same power be continued to the magistrates in the Metropolis? If they had not exercised their power over licences properly, let the law that gave them the authority be repealed altogether. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had alluded to a case, reported in The Times, in which a person named Langham had applied for a public-house licence, which the magistrates refused. What would be the result of such a case under the present Bill? A man whose application for a public-house licence was refused would immediately take out a wine licence, or a beer licence, with which the magistrates could not interfere, carry on his business, and laugh at the magisterial power altogether. He did not deny that the licensing power of the magistrates might have been abused; if so, let it be abolished altogether. The hon. Member for Westminster (Sir John Shelley), who seemed to be an opponent of the public-house keepers—perhaps because they were opponents of his—was opposed to this magisterial power. But, as the hon. Member for Norfolk said, it was quite ridiculous to suppose that people would get pure claret and chablis in these new wineshops. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said he would gladly exchange the drunkenness of London for the drunkenness of

1427
Paris; but every one who knew anything of Paris knew that a cheap liquor of the strongest kind was commonly sold in the estaminets at Paris. But he did not put the question on this ground; he thought that the law as to licences should be applied to both classes of houses, or let it be repealed altogether. But if they confided the power of licensing to the magistrates in one instance, it was only just and fair they should give them the same power in the other.
Amendment proposed,
"To leave out from the words "Wine Licence," in line 31, to the word "respectively," inclusive, in line 39, in order to insert the words "at their discretion, and upon all or any of the grounds on which they are now entitled to refuse or disallow any Licence by virtue of the Acts now in force regulating the granting of Licences to Public Houses."
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he could complain neither of the Amendment nor of the manner in which it had been proposed. The hon. and learned Gentleman, in submitting it to the notice of the Committee, had commented on the conduct of the hon. Member for Westminster, who, he suggested, was the opponent of the publicans probably because they were opposed to him; but he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) should very much like to know whether the converse of that proposition held good be that, however, as it might, he could not help thinking that it was not necessary to argue at length a question which certainly was the grand question of the debate on the second reading of the Bill. Anything in the shape of restraint—anything in the way of showing cause why licences should not issue, the Committee would be willing to entertain; but there could be no doubt that the pith and marrow of the Amendment lay in opposing the principle which was adopted by the House in the second reading. The hon. and learned Gentleman had cited the example of the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge, but in those cases there were vested rights secured by ancient charters, from which those corporate bodies derived considerable revenues, and he was sure the House would not destroy these beneficial interests by a bye-blow. The whole question raised by the hon. and learned Gentleman was involved in the three opening words of the Amendment "at their discretion," and it was the question of this discretion that was disposed of on the second reading of the Bill. The hon. and learned Gentleman had said, "Let us have
1428
one system or the other; let us not have a modification." But that was precisely what the House had decided. The condition of public business would alone make it obvious that the House was not prepared at present to deal with the whole of the subjects embraced in the Report of the Committee of 1854. They had been brought by a special question to this special measure. They had passed a Bill under which wine was to be admitted into this country upon terms which would place it within the reach of a very much larger class of consumers than at present. They had had to consider whether that wine ought to be restrained as regarded its supply within the channels now provided by law, and that question the House had most wisely decided in the negative. He did not think it would be advantageous again to debate the social and moral questions involved. The issue raised by the present Amendment was the question which had been decided upon the second reading of the Bill, when the House came, by a large majority, to the conclusion that the time had arrived when, at all events as far as wine was concerned, a more extended means of consumption ought to be allowed through the medium of a freer system of licence, combined with greatly improved means of control and police regulation.
MR. HARDYsaid, he should support the Amendment. The discussions which had taken place on the Bill tended distinctly to show that great difficulty in carrying out the law with reference to the regulation of the sale of liquors arose from the fact that different licences were granted. The Committee of 1854, for example, had arrived at the conclusion that the establishment of beershops—and the fact of their resorting to all sorts of expedients to obtain custom, thus compelling public-houses to follow their example—multiplied the evils in connection with such places of which complaint was made. That that view was correct was rendered pretty clear by the circumstance that in country towns and villages, where a check was put on the number of licences granted, the evils which were associated with public-houses were proportionately diminished; but, while he was far from saying that abuses did not prevail under the present system, he did not think the Chancellor of the Exchequer was taking the best or most honest course to provide for these abuses a remedy. A great deal had of late been said about the case of Langham, to whom a licence had

1429
been refused by the magistrates on the ground of his keeping a disorderly house. Let him suppose that upon that refusal he had taken a house in the immediate neighbourhood of that which he had formerly occupied, and obtained a licence, as he might do under the present Bill. He might make it an eating-house; the magistrates could not call it a disorderly house, for it had not been previously occupied, and a licence would be granted. They might make the law as strong as they pleased, but to a certain extent it would be evaded, and their only security would be to give the magistrates the initiative. He frankly owned that his objection to the magistrates was not as to what they had done in the initiative, but in respect of what they had omitted to do by way of check. They had paid too much respect to vested interests. When houses became disorderly, magistrates had no more reason to respect vested interests. At that moment the magistrates ought to interfere most stringently; and where there were two or three convictions for a disorderly house, they should proceed against the house itself. He did not admit the right of old charters to introduce immorality and disorder into the Metropolis. Three or four of the very worst places in London wore under the free vintners, or they would long ago have been put down by the magistrates. So long as character was left out of this clause, it became an imperfect means of putting a cheek on these houses; he should therefore support the Motion of the hon. and learned Member for Marylebone.
SIR JOHN SHELLEYsaid, that with reference to what had been stated of him in connection with the licensed victuallers, he begged leave to say he had that respect for the licensed victuallers of the Metropolis to be convinced that if they saw a person stand up manfully maintaining his opinions, though these might not entirely coincide with their own, they were not at all likely to form a worse judgment of him. He was bound as a representative of the people to look to the general good of the community; and his firm belief was the public would derive the greatest possible advantage from these refreshment-houses. The Amendment sought to put these refreshment-houses entirely under the jurisdiction of the magistrates, who were to have the right or discretion of saying how many houses should be licensed for the sale of refreshments. The magistrates from the agricultural parts of Middlesex had no
1430
real means of knowing what number of refreshment-houses were required in any particular district of the Metropolis, and therefore he entirely objected to a discretionary power being placed in the hands of the magistrates. The number of refreshment houses in any district would soon find their own level. Whether he lay under the imputation of acting for or against the licensed victuallers, he should certainly oppose this Motion.
MR. KER SEYMERsaid, he believed the adoption of this Motion would tend to create a new set of vested interests, and they had enough of vested interests to deal with already. If the magistrates had power to decide how many houses should have these licences, in the Strand, for instance, or Holborn, the houses so licensed would speedily acquire that mysterious value now attached to the establishments of the licensed victuallers. If they ever wished to adopt the recommendations of the Committee let them reject the present Motion.
SIR WILLIAM JOLLIFFEsaid, he thought that this clause embodied almost more objectionable features than any that he had ever seen. The irresponsible power proposed to be lodged in the hands of magistrates would bring down a great deal of blame upon them. If they were to give magistrates any power they had better give them power under the licensing system as it at present stood, but it was not fair to throw upon them a duty which they could not exercise without subjecting themselves to blame.
MR. AYRTONsaid, the Chancellor of the Exchequer was not entitled to quote the decision of the House on the second reading of the Bill in favour of this clause; because that right hon. Gentleman had undertaken, if they only consented to go into Committee, to make all sorts of amendments, obviating almost every conceivable objection. It was said the present licensing system ought not to continue, because a Committee had recommended that it should be changed. Nothing, however, could be more unjust or more impracticable than the plan suggested by that Committee—namely, that every public-house in the Metropolis should pay £30 before it was licensed; and every public-house in other parts of the country only £8. All experience showed that the discretion given to the justices in this matter should be as absolute as that proposed by this Amendment. Since the Norman con-

1431
quest, and probably long before it, houses for the sale of beer and wine had been under the strict control of the law; and, instead of relieving them from existing restraints, those restraints ought rather to be strengthened. If the justices did not now discharge their duty in regulating these places, let us have a law to make them; or, at all events, their functions might be remitted to the inhabitants of each locality. There was no more important duty which the magistracy could per form than that of repressing intemperance; and the better portion of the working classes desired to see stringent restrictions applied to places where the people now gathered together and were incited to drink to excess. If the magistracy were not prepared to co-operate in the promotion of public morality, let their powers for this object be confided to other hands. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said they must create increased channels for the abundant supplies of foreign wines which he anticipated. That argument only showed the necessity for taking additional precautions against abuse. By their legislation they might easily prevent the setting up of any of those new vested interests which appeared to frighten hon. Gentlemen. The conduct of Government on this question was anything but frank or satisfactory. Why did they not bring in a measure to consolidate and amend the whole of our law relating to the sale of intoxicating drinks? At all events, that law ought to be left as it stood, until it was revised with a view to the end for which it was designed—the repression of intemperance, not the filling of the public coffers.
MR. SOTHERON ESTCOURTsaid, that in this case the Excise was to grant the licence, though a sort of veto was given to the magistrates. This hybrid form of uniting together the two kinds of licence would produce great confusion. The competition likely to be created would be pernicious to public morals, and would render it more difficult to deal hereafter with the whole subject in a comprehensive measure, framed in accordance with the Report of a Select Committee. He should vote for the hon. Gentleman's proposal, because he thought it would be well to put the matter on something like an intelligible footing.
SIR WILLIAM MILESsaid, they were now in a transition state. The plan of the Chancellor of the Exchequer was much better than that of the Beer-houses Act. It gave to the magistrates the power of
1432
regulating these refreshment-houses; and the result would be to make those places far more orderly than the existing beerhouses. The Bill gave everybody who did not wish to frequent either a beer-house or a public-house the opportunity of partaking of wine in moderation. ["Oh, oh!"] Well, it might be without moderation. But that was a point that depended entirely upon the taste of those who frequented these houses. The measure should have his best support. The Amendment of the hon. and learned Gentleman was one which the Government could not support, and he trusted that they would go to the division as the friends or enemies of the Bill.
Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."
The Committee divided:—Ayes 154, Noes 117: Majority 37.
MR. HUNTsaid, he proposed to insert in the clause words authorizing the refusal of a licence in cases in which the applicant had within three years been convicted of any offence, or had within that period kept a common inn, alehouse, or victualling-house, and been refused a renewal of his licence.
THE SOLICITOR GENERALsuggested that the word "misdemeanour" should be substituted for "offence" in the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he had no objection to the substance of the Amendment, but thought that it ought to have been introduced earlier in the clause.
MR. ROEBUCKsaid, he thought that "offence" was too large a term. Anything was an offence, even the infraction of a Road Act.
MR. PULLERsuggested that the disqualification should be a conviction for felony, for any offence punishable by transportation or penal servitude, or for keeping a disorderly house.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he thought the objection taken by the hon. Member for Sheffield was a good one. There might be offences which did not really imply criminality.
MR. HUNTwould extend his Amendment, so that the disqualification should apply to the case of persons convicted of any offences punishable by imprisonment.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsuggested a further addition—"coupled with hard labour."
MR. AYRTONthought the words should be "convicted of an offence which, in the

1433
opinion of the justices, ought to disqualify him from holding a licence."
THE SOLICITOR GENERALsuggested that the word should be "a misdemeanour punishable by fine or imprisonment."
MR. EDWIN JAMESsaid, it was a misdemeanour punishable by fine or imprisonment for a person to sleep in the open air when he had no house to be in. Was that to be a disqualification to last three years?
MR. PEACOCKEsaid, a subscriber to the fund for Garibaldi's expedition would be punishable by fine or imprisonment, and if the Solicitor General's suggestion were adopted he would be unable to keep a public-house for three years.
MR. HARDYsaid, he thought that the hon. and learned Solicitor General would, by the substitution of this word, lead to a division where no difference really existed. The offence referred to in the Amendment of the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Hunt) must be a misdemeanour, as it could not be a felony or high treason.
MR. MELLORsaid, though he thought the word misdemeanour was not quite applicable to the case, he quite agreed with his learned Friend the Solicitor General that there were many offences, such as offences against the Highway Act, which would not come within the class proposed to exclude a person from taking out the licence.
MR. DIGBY SEYMOURsuggested the words "misdemeanour, or other offence punishable by imprisonment."
Amendment agreed to.
MR. ALDERMAN SALOMONSsaid, he proposed to add, after the word "respects," the words, "And the clerks of the said justices shall be entitled to receive a sum to be fixed by the justices, not exceeding 2s. 6d. for each licence." The object of his Amendment was to create a fund to reimburse the clerks of the justices for the extra duties they would have to perform.
MR. E. P. BOUVERIEsaid, the hon. Member for Greenwich ought to have given notice of the Amendment, but as he had not done so it ought to be postponed.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER moved at the end of the clause the insertion of a provision rendering it lawful for the Lord Mayor, aldermen, and justices respectively pending their decision on any objection aforesaid, to transmit to the supervisor before the expiration of thirty days a notice by way of caveat against the granting of the licence, and in that case the licence should not be granted if within the further
1434
period of thirty days the objection to the granting of the licence should be confirmed by tire said Lord Mayor, aldermen, or justices, and notice thereof given to the said supervisor.
MR. E. P. BOUVERIEsaid, he would suggest that a form of caveat should be inserted in a schedule.
Motion agreed to.
On Question that the Clause as amended stand part of the Bill,
SIR WILLIAM JOLIFFEsaid, that in the Metropolitan districts the power which they were now granting to the magistrates would neither benefit the public nor improve the regulation of these houses. The caveat would have no beneficial effect whatever. He would prefer to see the clause expunged altogether.
Clause as amended, agreed to.
Clause 13. (Notice to be given of Application for Licence to retail Wine to be consumed on the Premises in a House not previously licensed.)
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, it was not thought desirable to provide an appeal from the decision on original applications for licences, but with respect to applications for the renewal of licences it was considered advisable to provide appeal. He, therefore, proposed to introduce words giving an appeal with regard to renewals from Petty Sessions to the next General Quarter Sessions, but requiring that notice of objection to such renewal should be given three months before the time of renewal.
LORD LOVAINEsuggested that such a proposition would give three months' impunity to persons who improperly conducted their business.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERreplied, that as to all positive offences the present law would apply, and it was only fair that some such notice should be given.
MR. HUNTdrew attention to the additional expense that would be imposed upon the magistrates to defend their decision.
MR. AYRTONobserved that possibly the offence which made a renewal objectionable might occur within three months of the expiration of the licence.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERadmitted that might happen, but the only alternative would be to deprive persons of the power of continuing their business during the pendency of the appeal, which would not be just.
Clause, as amended, agreed to.
MR. P. W. MARTIN MR. P. W. MARTIN moved the following clause—
"That from and after the passing of this Act there shall be repealed the 12th Clause of an Act passed in the twenty-fourth year of the reign of his late Majesty King Geo. II., c. 40, and commonly called the Tippling Act."
His object was to prevent persons who bought a bottle or two of wine or spirits at a time of an innkeeper instead of a wine merchant, on credit, to be consumed in their own private houses or lodgings, from afterwards pleading the Tippling Act. The peculiarity was that this was not done by the persons described in the preamble of the Act of George II. as of the "poorer and baser sort," but persons in a class of life who ought to have known better.
MR. HARDYsaid, he objected to the hon. Gentleman's proposition, because the clause in question had been found most useful in its operation, for it had prevented publicans from imposing on poor men who, sitting in their houses till a late hour, at last got into such a state of intoxication that they really could not remember what they had had, and were therefore unable to swear that they had not had the quantity of drink for which in many cases they would, but for the operation of this clause, be sued. But also if the clause were repealed it would tend to increase drunkenness, for publicans, knowing that they could not recover for small quantities of drink supplied in such a manner, refused to give credit, and so the amount of drink consumed was limited.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he considered the clause not applicable to the Bill, the object of which was the sale of wine. He hoped the clause would not be pressed.
MR. AYRTONsaid, he trusted the Tippling Act would not be repealed under any circumstances.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
MR. JOHN LOCKEsaid, he would then propose the following clause:—
"That from and after the passing of this Act, sec. 7 of 5 & 6 Will. IV., c. 39, shall be and the same is hereby repealed."
His object was to place persons who sold spirits and beer in theatres on the same footing with licensed victuallers, over whom they had now an advantage with regard to the mode of obtaining a licence.
THE CHAIRMANsaid, the proposed Amendment referred to matters not touched upon by the present Bill, and therefore
1436
it would be improper to add such a clause to it.
MR. AYRTONsaid, he hoped the hon. and learned Member would be able to introduce his Amendment in the Bill in another shape, as the practice he proposed to deal with was a great scandal and disgrace.
MR. HUME MR. HUME moved, That the Chairman report progress.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he hoped the hon. Gentleman would not persist in his Motion. He had several clauses to propose, which, if introduced, would make the Bill complete, and enable hon. Members to judge of it as a whole, and it was of importance that that should be done now.
LORD FERMOYsaid, the proposal of the hon. and learned Member for Southwark (Mr. Locke) was believed by many to be of great importance. He, therefore, hoped it would be understood that an opportunity would be given for its discussion on the Report.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, there would be no difficulty upon that point.
MR. HARDYsaid, he hoped that the Motion for reporting progress would be withdrawn, so that they might have the Bill printed in a complete form.
MR. HUMEsaid, he would withdraw his Motion for reporting progress, on the understanding that the Bill should be recommitted with the new clauses in it.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
THE CHAIRMANsaid, the hon. and learned Member for Southwark (Mr. Locke) would be in order in moving his clause respecting theatres on the Report.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER moved a clause to the effect that a wine licence should be forfeited on a second conviction within two years.
Clause agreed to.
On the Schedule,
MR. AYRTONsaid, he would propose to insert in the licence that the main and chief business carried on should be the sale of food. Unless some such condition were expressed the sale of a few biscuits would entitle a person to a wine licence.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERcould not agree to the proposal. He did not think it desirable to make the Excise the judges whether eating was the main and chief business of the house. The Justices, too, would not look to the licence, but to the Act of Parliament. The form

1437
of licence for a refreshment-house was, after some further conversation, agreed to, as was also that for the sale of wine to be consumed on the premises.
MR. WARNERsaid, he thought the objection raised by the hon. Member for the Tower Hamlets was valid. The law would be evaded if the words were not inserted.
MR. SOTHERON ESTCOURTsuggested that the sale of wine under this licence should he placed under the same restriction as to hours as that for the sale of wine to be consumed on the premises.
SIR MORTON PETOapproved of the suggestion.
MR. AYRTONthought it would be better for the Government to bring in a comprehensive measure to regulate the new system of morality that was to be established under this Bill.
MR. ROEBUCKsaid, he hoped that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would shut up the houses of the licensed victuallers at the same time as the winchouses.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERadmitted that there was some force in the observation of the hon. Member for Sheffield. They could not, however, insert anything in a schedule which they had not enacted in the clauses of the Bill.
Schedule agreed to.
House resumed.
Bill reported; as amended, to be considered on Monday next.

ROMAN CATHOLIC CHARITIES BILL.

  COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  MR. BOWYERsaid, he would move that this Bill be committed pro formâ, in order that certain additional clauses which had been proposed by the Attorney General on the part of the Government might be printed. He stated that the measure was simply a conveyancing Bill, and involved no important principle.
  House in Committee.
  MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, he hoped that as this Bill involved a number of serious considerations, and the repeal of many Acts, the Government would give an opportunity for its full consideration.
  MR. BOWYERobserved, that it was merely a conveyancing Bill to remedy certain defects of title in Roman Catholic trusts. He would suggest its reconsideration that day week. It involved no principle.
  MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, he must object to that course, as it would be calcu-
  1438
  lated to postpone the discussion of the Bill, and pass it without any.
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, the Bill was the Bill of the hon. Member for Dundalk, and he would fix the day for the consideration of the Bill in Committee.
  Amendments inserted.
  Bill reported; re-committed for Thursday next.
  The House resumed.

INNKEEPERS' LIABILITY BILL.

  COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  House in Committee.
  SIR FRANCIS GOLDSMIDsaid, he should oppose the Bill. The law as it stood was now clear, but the proposed Bill would only superinduce confusion. It proposed to limit the liability of innkeepers with respect to goods deposited with them by guests to £40. He moved that the Chairman report progress.
  MR. EDWIN JAMESsaid, at present innkeepers were subject to great injustice, who were compelled to receive guests at any hour; and, whatever property they might bring with them, the innkeeper was liable to the full amount. He thought his liability should be reduced to a reasonable amount.
  COLONEL SMYTHEsaid, he should support the Bill, though he thought £40 too high a sum.
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, he hoped the Chairman would be allowed to report progress.
  SIR FRANCIS GOLDSMIDsaid, he had several Amendments to propose.
  MR. WHITESIDEobserved, that the hon. Baronet ought to have given notice of his Amendments.
  The House resumed.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again on Friday next.
  House adjourned at Two o'clock till Monday next.