The Sun. — London, England, 1860-05-18 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, FRIDAY EVENING, MAY 18, 1860. reader hima elf liable to an indictment at common law. The question therefore was whether that would be an indictable act. He - was not prepared for one moment to question the doctrine upon a matter in his opinion very different from that before the house, namely, on the doctrine of conspiracy to excite and foment rebellion in the States of _ foreign and friendly Powers. The hon. gentleman had quoted, and very properly, the statements of high authorities in that house and elsewhere, that conspiracy could be dealt with as a misdemeanour, and punished by fine or imprisonment ; and so far from taking any exception to that doctrine, he would cite from a de bate, which took place on the 4th of March, 1853, the lan guage of Lord Lyndhurst on a similar subject. Lord Lyndhurst said, on that occasion, if a number of British subjects were to combine and conspire together to excite revolt among the subjects of a foreign and friendly State, and issue proclamations and manifestoes, and above all if they were to subscribe money to purchase arms to carry into effect that intended enterprise, such persons would undoubtedly be guilty of misdemeanour, and liable to severe punishment, inasmuch as it might lead to discord, and ultimately to war, between this country and the country against which the-conspiracy was directed. (Hear, hear.) Ile (the Solicitor-General) found no fault with the doctrine thus propounded, but every English lawyer knew the dif ficulty in bringing to bear on such cases the operations of the common law. They had in the case of Dr. Bernard an instance of the extreme difficulty of bringing the common law to bear upon an individual who conspired to bring about an act intended to be completed in a foreign country. He would only say, in justice to himself, that he had ex pressed himself the other night—that he had expressed his opinion on a particular case put before him—and as to the law on that case. He gave no opinion as to the case of persons who formed themselves into a committee for the purpose of raising subscriptions, nor even as to those who caused advertisements to be inserted in news papers, still less as to the" penal or other consequences to persons who might take part in such a combination. With this limitation he held and repeated the opinion he had already expressed; and he would only say further upon the general subject, that in the Foreign Enlistment Act there was strong evidence on the part of those who framed that statute, of their conviction that the general terms ;of the law of this country were insufficient to deal with offences of that description. (Hear, hear.) His attention had been called by the hon, member for King's County to the doctrine laid down in a case de cided by the Court of Common Pleas. It had been inferred that a solitary act of subscription would amount to an in dictable offence. On that point he was entirely at issue with the hon. member. He did not deny that in the case of a foreign loan sought to be raised against a country at peace with this country, the Court of Common Fleas, in an action upon the contract, held that it could not be enforced, and, that the contract was tainted with illegality. But every lawyer knew that illegality was one thing, and liability to be:proceeded against in a criminal court another. He thought that when the matter was fully considered, it would be found that there was no great difference of opinion upon it. He concurred with the doctrine expressed in the House of Lords as to conspiracy, but he held that though individual sub scriptions, such as had been alluded to, were contrary to common law, and any contracts between parties to such subscriptions being tainted with illegality, could not be en forced in the Court of Common Pleas, they did not neces sarily bring the parties within the scope of the criminal courts. (Hear.) Mr. WHITESIDE—If the answer given to the house the other night by the hon. gentleman has, by means of the electric telegraph, created some confusion abroad, I think I can undertake to say the speech which he has just made will not be productive of much alarm, as I rather think it will not be understood. (Hear.) In the words of the old couplet,— " He darkens by elucidation And mystifies by explanation." (Laughter.) lam 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. (Hear.) When he sat down I was more in the dark even than when he got up to understand what are his views upon this matter. 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 discuss—of collecting and con veying subscriptions to those persons who are now in insur rection against their soveregn the King of Naples in Sicily. That is a fact which it is beyond the hon. gentleman's powers of explanation to mystify. (A laugh.) 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 requisi tion of that advertisement. 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 co-opera tion for his destruction (laughter) ; 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 sub scriptions 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. (Cheers.) To do justice to the Solicitor-General—not that I under stand it—the distinction which he drew was this : If an in dividual pays his money it may be misapplied ; but, as it would be opposed to the principles of morality to inquire whether the money was rightly applied in disposing of the Sovereign for whose destruction, according to the terms of the advertisement, it was morally and specifically to be ap plied, therefore, he says, an individual may lawfully sub scribe. I doubt it. (Cheers.) The hen. and limed gen tleman 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 objects which persons forming themselves into a public body had under taken to accomplish. I say they could not. (Cheers.) The SO LIC IT OR- GENERAL--The question is whether they would be liable to any legal proceedings. Mr. WHITESIDE—It is true the question is put in that form ; but the hon. a d 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, because the very document shows that he is only one of a number. (Cheers.) Mr. E. JAMES—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 in stance 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 discuss ing. Dr. Bernard was not indicted for conspiracy at com mon law, but for an offence under a particular statute, and ho was acquitted by ajury. Inasmuch as I was the advocate in that case, I shall refrain from stating any groundsbut those which are publicly known. It was felt on that occasion that a statute had been perverted for the purpose of endeavour ing, by the indictment of an individual, to relieve the Go vernment from a political difficulty ; and the jury were per fectly justified in the view which they took, because the Government were challenged to bring forwafd their legal arguments, and, those arguments being postponed, the de fendant was acquitted on the facts of the case. Dr. Bernard was indicted, not for conspiracy, as the hon. and learned gentleman has told the house, but under a statute that was known to every lawyer in Westminster••hall not to apr ly to his particular case. And, therefore, when the Solicitor- General states the difficulty of convicting persons of con spiracy, his observation must be taken to apply to the evi dence ; and if this is a conspiracy—and I, as a lawyer, have no doubt that it is —(loud cheers)—the hon. and learned gentleman, I think, will find grounds for reconsidering the hasty and immature opinion which he has given on this sub ject. What clearer evidence can you have of the overt acts of a conspiracy than the payment of money by one individual and its receipt by another? (Cheers.) If a committee advertise for subscriptions, they are surely supposed to be human beings congregated for the purposes of that subscrip tion ; 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 get up in this house and say what clearer evidence of evert acts can be afforded. (Cheers.) 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 import • ante that this matter should be thoroughly understood on the continent—(cheers) ;—and I feel that we are indebted to the hon. gentleman the member for the King's County for having brought it forward. (Cheers.) The hon. and learned gentleman the Solicitor-General spoke of this as an offence against the Foreign Enlistment Act, which it cer tainly w as not ; it had no more to do with it than with the Habeas Corpus Act—(a laugh)—but there is a question to which the Foreign Enlistment Act does apply, and I ask the hon. and learned member for the King's County to bring that forward on another occasion. (Loud and sustained cheering.) 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 Lamori ciere. 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 subjecte, comes equally within the provisions of the Foreign Enlist.. meat Act. (Tremendous cheering.) The debate was here interrupted by the appearance at the bar of Lord PROBY, Comptroller of the Household, who stated that he was the bearer of the Queen's answer to the Address of the House of Commons on the subject of pen.• sigma for wounds. The message was in the following terms : " I have received your address praying me to 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 the subject shall receive due consideration.' 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—(hear) — and those principles I freely agree to be these :—You have no right whatever to interfere in the domestic affairs of an other nation. (Cheers.) That, unquestionably, is the rule of common law, and the foundation of all leg:,'ation on the subject. If you wanted to exemplify this in your own his tory, the lecture which you read to the Fr,q - ch king on the occasion of the revolt of your North American colonies would supply you with abundance both of principles and of reasoning. The hon. and learned member for Marylebone says the members of the committee are conspirators, and that any person 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 men tion some instances that would have justified this conclu sion. I was very anxious to find one when the Conspiracy Bill was under consideration; and I cannot think 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. Sir H. CAIRNS—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 action, amounting to a conspiracy, is taken to effect an illegal purpose, by any number of persons, 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 think the point is clear ; I think an illustration may be given, of which the house will see the force, and which does not require much legal acumen to appreciate. Suppose sub scriptions were advertised for in London with the object of raising a riot in Yorkshire, would dot a person subscribing to that fund, for the promotion of that purpose, be guilty of conspiring to effect it ? I cannot conceive what act of con spiracy can be more overt or more definite than handing maney to a common fund when told that the fund is to be applied in a particular way. (Hear.) But to say that the common law does not extend to every man, woman, and child within the jurisdiction of the Queen— The ATTORNEY-GENERAL—I did not say that. Sir H. CAIRN S—l beg to say that the distinction sug gested by the hon. and learned gentleman may very well be drawn in this case. It is only a case of the liability, under the common law, of foreigners collecting subscrip tions for the purpose avowed. Mr. BOVILL—The importance of the question cannot be overrated. By the interpretation of the law on this sub ject the interests of England and Europe may be affected. If this subscription is illegal by the law of nations, the King of Naples may immediately, and without a declara tion 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 are virtually at war with Naples. Mr. HOPE trusted the house would receive a fuller ex planation of the state of the law than had yet been given by the learned Attorney-General on this subject. It was now 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 un able to enforce our laws upon them. That 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 explana tion of an authority like the Attorney-General, and he hoped, therefore, that that learned gentleman would dis tinctly state whether he meant to propound such a doctrine to the house. The ATTORNEY-GENERAL--What I stated was simply this, that the common law is applicable to the sub jects 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 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 £lOO,OOO to Garibaldi, undoubtedly I should consider that a misdemeanour at common law; but suppose a Sicilian refugee sent the same sum, I should have no con - fidence in giving an opinion that that also would be a mis demeanour at common law. In the absence of decisions the subject does not admit of a more decided opinion. Mr. MONSELL said that before the house left this sub ject he wished to call upon her Majesty's Government to state what were their intentions with regard to this most im portant 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. (Hear, hear.) If these subscriptions had reference to 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 forced to pursue ? (Hear, hear.) Suppose that in France or Russia subscriptions•were got up and announced in the public papers for the purpose of freeing the people of the lonian Islands, who objected to their Government as much as the Sicilians did, from the yoke of Great Britain, should we for ono moment tolerate such a proceeding? (Hear, hear.) 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 man ner that we should be compelled to deal with the great and powerful ones (Hear, hear.) Ho 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 —(hear, hear)—because the very announcement of their de termination to pursue such a course would have a moral force and a moral weight in this country, and would through out Europe destroy the lamentable and unfortunate effect which the doubtful opinion given by the hon. and learned gentleman the Solicitor-General had already produced. (Hear, hear.) Before resuming his seat 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. The hon. and learned gentleman had endeavoured to cover the unpopularity of the co. , rse which he was taking by 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 that any mili tary marl 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 speak of such a man in such language ? (Hear, hear.) 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 his whole course his every act had been marked by the greatest benevolence. (Hear, hear.) 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 ter ritories from the dominion of the Pope ? IV hen 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 endea voured to benefit, but to resist those foreign Filibusters who wished to raise a rebellion in his States. That he helieved to be the real fact, and the words which had been used by the hon. and learned gentleman with regard either to his Holiness or to General Lamoriciere were words which ought not to have been used by any member of that house. (Hear.) The hon. and learned member for Marylebone had erro neously 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 wore in the habit of serving foreign States. In the' reign of George 11., 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 1811, at the time of the peace, there was a treaty made be tween 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 11. English sub jects, although not able to enlist in the Spanish army, might lawfully take service on the side of the revolted pro vinces. 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 enlist ment in the service of anybody claiming to have any au thority in a foreign country. Undoubtedly English sub jects 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 an application was made to him on the part of an English officer in the Austrian army, who wished to be allowed to get rid of his En g li s h natural i sation. That application was refused, as being contrary to the law-of This country ; but the Home Secretary never dreamt of...findifw fault with the British officer for having enlisted in the Austrian army. If there was any objection to Irishmen enlisting in the army of the Pope the first thing that ought to be done should be the announcement of the fact in a Royal proclamation, for hitherto it had not been the practice to prevent enlistment in the army of a friendly Power, and if the Government had resolved upon a change of policy in that respect it was their duty to take the step he had suggested. (Hear.) Mr. MALINS thought that the opinion which the Solici tor-General gave on a previous occasion with respect to the _ _ _ lawfulness of raising subscriptions in this country for the purpose of waging war against a friendly Power was incur , . tiously advanced, and felt convinced that if his hon. and learned friend, instead of making an elaborate attempt to prove that to be right which everybody knew to be wrong, had candidly acknowledged that he had expressed himself too hastily, the house would have treated him with the greatest indulgence. Anything more dangerous or more erroneous than the doctrine laid down by the Solicitor- General—viz., that foreigners residing in this country might lawfully combine together to raise money for the purpose of making war witha friendly Power, he could not conceive. The Attorney-General had entirely repudiated it, bat at the same time, doubtless from a desire to screen his colleague, had expressed himself with considerable ambiguity on one portion of the subject. He had correctly stated that for any body of men to combine together to raise money for the pur pose of making war against a friendly Power was contrary to the common law of England, but he had also raised a doubt whether the law was applicable to foreigners resident in this country. Now, if the hon. and learned gentleman really entertained any doubt upon that 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. His own opi nion was that the common law of England, so accurately defined by the Attorney-General, was equllly applicable to natives and foreigners, and he suspected that if the sub. scription advertised in the Times had been raised to put down the Government of the Emperor of the French, or of some other powerful Sovereign, it would have been stopped long ago. (Hear.) The debate had been most useful and important, and ought to have some practical result, and he therefore wished to ascertain what was the intention of the Government with respect to those advertisements calling on foreigners and British subjects to subscribe money to make war on the King of Naples. (Hear.) With the Govern ment of Naples this country ought not to interfere, or, if it interfered, should interfere in a manner to leave no doubt as to the result ; but this acquiescence, amounting to con nivance, in irregular proceedings against a powerless ally was grossly improper. He apprehended that the Govern ment on consideration would find that a foreigner in this country had equally with a British subject no right to pro ject the upsetting of a foreign and friendly Government, and this matter might be brought to a test if an indictment were preferred against the parties issuing the advertisement he had alluded to. At any rate, an intimation from the Government that the proceeding in question was discounte nanced by them would have a salutary effect. In confor mity with the same principles of strict neutrality the ques tion whether or not Romagna was to belong to the Popo was one to be settled between him and his own subjects, and therefore the enlistment in Ireland of troops for the Pope, alluded to by the hon. member for Marylebone, must be considered an infringement of that strictneutrality which ought to be preserved in this country. Mr. NEWDEGATE trusted that if the Government acted on the suggestion to issue a proclamation to prohibit assist ance being given to General Garibaldi, on whose under taking 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 colleges, for the enlistment of her Ma jesty's subjects to serve the Pope. The Government would not forget the prompt manner in which the 'attempt 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 State making war for temporal pur poses, although the head of the State was invested with spi ritual authority. Not only were men being enlisted, but the days of Peter's Pence were revived—contributions were being extracted from her Majesty's subjects under the name of a tax formally abolished by the Legislature of this coun try. This was no trifling matter. It was all very well for the house to express indignation at what might be a rash undertaking by Garibaldi. But that was a sudden move ment, while the other was a protracted and organised sys tem. Was it consistent with the law of this country, and with the principles of international law, that the agents of foreign States should raise money and men in this country without the consent of her Majesty's Government ? He wished to ask whether the persons accepting this engagement did not from the hour of leaving this country lose all claim to their rights as British subjects, and who' her the consent of the Government not having been given they did not stand in the position of pirates, and were not at the mercy of any foe whom they might encounter ? He thought that if Govern ment took any action in the case of Garibaldi, they ought equally to take it in the other. (Hear.) Mr. B. OSBORNE—I am not about to enter into the question of enlistment in Ireland. That is not properly the question before the house. (Hear, hear.) The original questionwas one calling attention to the reply given by 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. (flear, hear, and laughter.) I must say I heard that answer with great surprise, but it is no slight thing for the Solicitor-General by implication to leave people out of doors to imagine that tho 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 that the subscription is strictly an illegal ono. Whether it would be advisable on the part of Government to prosecute, and whether they would get a conviction is another question ; but it is no doubt the place of 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. (Hear, hear.) If we once give way to this sort of thing, on what ground can we complain of the con duct of America ? Have I not heard gentlemen here using the strangest language with reference to General Walker? What was said about the attempt by American Filibusters some time ago to take the Havannah ? Those are parallel instances, and if we are on every occasion to express mir sympathies by subscription 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. (Hear, hear.) 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 ,t 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. (Hear, hear.) Now, I wish on this subject to put a question to 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 English vessels. Whether that be true or not, I know the report is very prevalent on the Con inent, because I have received communications from abroad stating that the fact clearly shows this country to be in favour of the ex pedition. On the Treasury bench this question has been narrowed down to the mere consideration of its legal bear ing ; 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 to tell us what truth there is in the statement, that the landing of the expedition has been mainly assisted by English ves sels. (Hear, hear.) With regard to the subscriptions, I believe there are many sympathisers with the Sicilian cause € yen in this house. I, perhaps, may sympathise, but my duty here is superior to my sympathy, and I certainly will not show that s empathy by breaking the law. (Hear, hear.) The O'DONOGITUE said it used to be held that illegal acts only met with approval in Ireland ; but such a doctrine could now no ' onger be maintained. He had 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—(hear)—and he was sure the house would agree with him that there was such a difference be tween assisting a legitimate Sovereign to maintain order in his dominions and a• sisting rebels 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. (Hear.) As to the statement of the hon. and learned gentle man (Mr. James) that those who were going from Ireland, if any were going, were proceeding to Italy in order to mas sacre the subjects of the Pope, that was a most unwarrant able 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 honourable and learned gentleman. Lord J. RUSSELL—My hon. friend (Mr. B. Osborne) has asked me a question :respecting the landing of Gari baldi, and respecting two British ships which are said in certain telegrams to have protected the landing of these men. Now, I received to-day from the Admiralty the telegraphic despatch of the officer commanding one of these vessels— the Intrepid. Hon. gentlemen should be informed that there is considerable 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 pro. tection 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 mer chant steamers came in with Garibaldi's force and began to land it. While this was going on 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 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 ho says that, although they had the opportunity of firing upon the vessels and the men, they did not 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. (Hear, hear.) He had no instructions which authorised him to take 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 con flict that is going on. (Hear, hear.) 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 that such was not the case. It does wear 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 11farsala by the Neapolitan ships. That should be considered as an act of international cour tesy 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. It does not appear that the English officer in any way exceeded his duty. He was there for the purpose of pro.. tecting British interests, and he did no more. (Hear.) I must now say a few words upon the other point which has been so much discussed. I shall not, of course, touch upon the question of law upon which the hon. and learned gen tlemen on both sides have given us admirable disquisitions, but from which I cannot ascertain that in this particular case it would bo wise for the Government to prosecute. 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 another question whether, if the Government were to prosecute in a certain case, we asked him to state the probability of obtaining a convictidn. The hon. and learned gentleman opposite 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 evi dence 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. MARLINS—Names are given of persons by whom subscriptions will be received. Lord J. RUSSELL—There are names given by the printer of the Times newspaper, I allow, but I am not con vinced that Signor Saffi or ethers whose names appear, if they were asked by some one sent by the Attorney •Goneral, 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 Sicily. 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 without au thority use the names of Signor Saffi and others, or we should be all at the mercy of the printer of the Times, who might give the names of all the Cabinet as contributors of large sums to be used in waging war against the King of the Two Sicilies. " Hear," and a laugh.) The hon. and learned gentleman is a much better judge than I ant of these matters, but if the government were to prosecute in stick cases they would have to ask the law officers as to the means of obtaining convictions. Ido not remember any case of successful prosecution in respect of persons who had been subscribing for the purpose of mantaining insur rection or wars in Poland or other countries. There is one country in regard to which I myself was concerned, to gether with many distinguished persons. I refer to the insurrection in Greece. We carried on our proceedings openly. I was a member of a committee which met at Lord Fitwilliam's house in Grosvenor-square, and after wards we went to a meeting in the city. I did not find at that time there was any great zeal for prosecuting us ("hear," and laughter), and certainly I never suffered any imprisonment in consequence of my connexion with those proceedings. (Hear, hear.) Therefore the question of common law does not appear to be quite solved yet, and it requires much consideration before the Government can feel warranted in interfering. But, after all, there is much difference of opinion on these 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 when you consider these questions of insurrection and international law you must separate them from each other. A move ment such as that which Walker attempted in south America, when he sought to invade and to obtain possession of territory, with no higher object than his own selfish interests, is one case ; but a patriot fighting for the independence of his country is quite snother case. (Hear, hear.) 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. (Hear, hear.) We had once a great filibuster who landed in England in 1688. (Hear, hear.) He not only received considerable support, but all the people of Eng land flocked around him. (Hear, hear, and " No.") That filibustering was successful. (Hear, hear.) These aro 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 cer tainly 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 prose cute those who are raising subscriptions to send money to Sicily. (Hear, hear.) Mr. WYLD, referring to the "blasphemous proclama tion" that had been attributed to Ricciardi, said that docu ment had never been acknowledged by that patriot or his friends. (Hear.) 'With respect also to the statement that Garibaldi was a member of a secret society, he reminded the house that the imputation had always been denied by that distinguished individual, who was too noble to connive or take part in private murder. (Hear, hear.) Mr. MAGUIRE said the noble lord had stated that the printer of the Times might take extraordinary liberties with the Cabinet, and might put down the name of every member of it as having aided and assisted the expedition of Garibaldi. If the printer of the Times had done that, he would by no means have made an extraordinary mistake (a laugh), seeing that the Government had done everything in their power, perhaps unconsciously, to promote discontent in the dominions of the King of the Two Sicilies, and to a certain extent to encourage the present rebellion. The noble lord, sitting in the Foreign office as a kind of European school master, had regularly birched the King of Naples—(a laugh) —he had, in fact, done everything to discredit his autho rity in his own dominions, and had almost justified the in surrection. The fact was the King of Naples was compell•d to take steps which might be called arbitrary and harsh, but which were absolutely necessary in the state of the public feeling there. Surely that Sovereign, when he found con spiracies hatching in Naples with the view to foment insur rection in Sicily, had a perfect right to turn the conspira tors out of the country. He (Mr. Maguire) hated to see in the despatches emanating from the Foreign-office all that cowardice and truckling manifested towards a great power, and that tyranny and eppression towards the a mall. (Hear.) The noble lord was brave when ho had to deal with the King of Naples or the Sovereign of Rome, but he blanched when he had to encounter the Emperor of France. The most abominable conspiracy the world ever saw was now being carried on in Italy, and all the confusion there at this moment was owing to the infamous machinations of two kingly robbers. He was perfectly justified in the belief that the robbery which was perpetrated in Italy of a por tion of the States of the Pope and of a portion of the Aus • trian dominions, and the division of the booty between those two Sovereigns, originated in a base compact between them. And what was the principle that had been sanctioned by her Majesty's Government ? Why, that it was lawful for any portion of the subjects of a legitimate Sovereign to cast off his yoke and to hand over their allegiance to another. On the same principle the people of Cornwall or of Devon might throw off the yoke of the Queen, and might, by universal suffrage, express their discontent with her Go vernment, and their determination to he free, or to hand over their allegiance to the Emperor of the French. (Hear, hear.) Garibaldi is called an illustrious patriot, and by many mere high-sounding epithets ; but who were his accomplices? Why, the very scum of Italy—bandits and assassins, leagued together by tics of blood. Among them was ono Zambianchi, who, judging him by his acts, was an infamous villain, a foul, hood-stained robber, and an as sassin. He could tell the house something of that man Zam bianchi. He had been a Custom-house officer, and was an infi del and vagabond— (a laugh—he feared neither God nor man; he was at enmity with the Pope ; and therefore, forsooth, he was a hero and a patriot. During the rebellion in Rome he assisted in arresting every Arson who endeavoured to escape from' the confusion in whist the Pope's dominions were at that time; and if the persons whom ho arrested ventured to express opinions different fom his own ho settled the con troversy either by the dagger or the pistol. He had a large field of action in the city of Rome. Ho brought a number of priests into San Calisto, vhom he imprisoned, afterwards starving some and rourderhg others, cutting them in piece meal and gloating over tiler agony. Sudh were the hor rible atrocities committed ly that miscreant that the revo lutionary Government were eventually compelled to inter fere and put a stop to his barbarities. Why did the noble lord do to the K ing of Napes what he did not dare to do to the Emperor of France ? Tim noble lord would say, of course, that the Emperor ofFranc&went to Italy to liberate Italy. Was there ever a nure monstrous " humbug" than that ? (An ironical laugh ) He repeated, was there ever a more monstrous "humbug' than for one of the most con summate despots whom tit world ever saw to pretend to give liberty to Italy? Whin the people were shot down in the streets of Paris at the tine of the coup d'etat, did any re buke for the brutal atrocities perpetrated on that occasion come from the English Government ? Was there not rather an expression of sympathy with Louis Napoleon from one I whose name had been almost synonymous with the en couragement of revolution throughout the world ? " Oh, oh I" He (Mr. Maguire) said they ought to be careful in those cases in laying down principles, for no man knew how soon they might be applied to themselves. If there were any hostile feelings on the part of Ireland to wards this country, ho could not see why Louis Napoleon might not fancy he heard a " cry of agony" from Cork or from Kerry, and why he might not attempt to land some 30,000 or 50,000 sympathisers with liberty on its shores. He (➢lr. Maguire), as an Irishman, would be one of the first to repel such an attempt, for he abhorred the man and his rule; and, much as he might be disposed to find fault with the Government of England in dealing with Ireland, it would be one of the greatest calamities that could befall his country to allow that man, or a single soldier that fought under his banner, to get foot upon its shores. What he desired was that this country should be preserved from the machinations of a man of this kind ; and he therefore asked gentlemen to pause before they sanctioned a principle that might prove dangerous to its interests. He thought that, as the friends of liberty, they should be the last to en- courage any scoundrel who was endeavouring to carry out his own private objects tinder the auspices of two kingly robbers, whose names would be branded with infamy when the history of these times was written. (Hear ) Mr. H. D. SEYMOUR rose to express his surprise at the speech of the noble lord the Foreign Secretary. (Hear.) With reference to that speech, he would take the liberty to I mention a conversation -which he had heard on the bench near him. A friend of his had said to another hon. member, " You are, of course, in favour of non-inter vention ; what do you think of the noble lord's speech ?" The reply was, "Why, I think he was holding the candle.* (Hear, hear.) And that was said by a very moderate man, and a supporter of the Government. The noble lord had formed a very decided opinion upon this question, and he held out very strong encouragement to those who were willing to support Garibaldi. Lord J. RUSSELL—I gave no opinion at all. I said that each case must be jadged by its own merits, but I gave no opinion whatever. (Hear, hear.) Mr. SEYMOUR—If I understood the noble lord aright, he compared Garibaldi to William 111. of England. Lord J. RUSSELL—No; I compared Walker to Wil liam lll.—not Garibaldi. (A laugh.) Mr. SEYMOUR certainly thought, and he believed others had the same impression, that the tone of the noble lord's speech was to encourage the Sicilian insurrection. (Hear, hear.) But it now appeared that such was not his intention. He thought the position of the Government of this country should be one of non-intervention. (Hear, hear.) If we encouraged Filibusters s under the impression that they were acting in the cause of liberty, the time might come when we should have the doctrine turned against ourselves. (Hear, hear.) He agreed with those who thought that if Garibaldi succeeded in his expedition to Sicily, he might easily establish there a Government better than the Neapo litan one ; but when they saw the difficulties that lay in the way of extricating Sicily from the rule of Naples, and the European complications that must arise, while their best wishes were for a better Government in Sicily, yet they must L desire that it should not be taken out of the hands of its present lawful possessors. (Hear, hear.) THE DEFECTIVE GUNBOATS. Mr. F. SMITH reset° askthe Secretary to the Admiralty if he had any objection to discontinue the breaking up of the defective gunboats till a full opportunity was afforded for thoroughly examining into their state under the direc tion of a select committee, should it be appointed. He was desirous that these gunboats should not be broken up, in order that they might have the means of ascertaining in what condition they really were. The other evening the noble lord the Secretary to the Admiralty was asked to name the contractors by whom the boats were built—a ques tion which he with his usual good taste and judgment de clined to arfaver. But since then the Messrs. Green had come forward and publiely stated in the newspapers that they were the contractors of a large number of the boats found to be imperfect ; and they admitted the use of unsea soned timber and short bolts. 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." 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 large 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 an swerable that every bolt was properly driven. It is admit ted 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 ~uite sufficient to se cure the safety of any vessel of war. Lloyd's require ono through bolt and este short bolt in every butt, and net lees than half of the trenails to be driven through, in building their highest class ships, calculated to carry heavy car goes; and, should the ship be copper-fastened, theyrequire only one half of the bolts to be through bolts, and all the rest short bolts. We complain of the Admiralty for not giv ing the contractors longer time to build these vessels, anti for not having a larger staff of inspectors to superintend the work, and also for not taking proper care of them after they wore duly delivered up into the charge of their authorities, aciording 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. lle hoped the noble lord would be able to give bim the assurance that the destruction of these boats would be immediately stopped. (Hear, hear.) Sir J. ELPHINSTONE believed that these gunboats were defective in every possible respect, and as they consti tuted a species of defence of the greatest importance, he trusted that an inquiry would take place before a select committee as to how the demands of the public service for this class of vessels might be best supplied. Into the per sonal question hnwould not enter. It was necessary during the Russian war that gunboats should be immediately built. There was no seasoned timber to be got, and the Govern ment were obliged to have such vessels as they could procure. The Government, however, would have adopted a much more sagacious course if when the war was over they, had dispensed with the services of these boats, and had directed the construction of more suitable vessels. There were 150 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 tho existing gunboats could neither steam nor sail. They could not carry their guns in heavy weather, and they wore incapable 'of moving from one point of the ccast to the other, as and when they were required. One object of the inquiry ought to be to ascertain what a gunboat really ought to be. (Hear.) Nfriend of his, an officer of great intelligence, had fitted out a gunboat for service in a distant colony, and had sent him an account of her performances. This friend said that the merits of hiavessel might be summed up in the words that she was an excellent sea-boat and " stayed" well, but that her defects would fill a sheet of foolscap. She drew 8 ft. 6in of water, could not steam for more than 24 hours without interruption, and leaked like a sieve. (A laugh.) Yet this gunboat was on service, and was making her way to a dis tant colony, where she would have to defend the honour of the country. (Hear.) He had himself witnessed at Spithead the other day the extraordinary performances of one of these vessels—the Beaver, which formed one of the advanced steam reserve. 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, would have answered very well for thrashing corn. (A laugh.) There were 40 or 50 of these gunboats hauled up at Haslar, like horses in a stable. They were drawn up by a screw, and the slightest derangement of the machinery would lock them all up, so that they might as well be in Winchester gaol. (A laugh ) It would be of the greatest advantage to inquire into the best construction of small vessels. He believed that if an Armstrong gun were put into the small swift steamboats employed on the Thames, they m'ght be painted of a tint which would render it impossible to distinguish them, at the distance they could throw shot or shell, from the water they moved upon. But the gunboats built during the Rus sian war were miserable things, and no reliance should be placed upon an arm that would be certain to fail us in the time of need. (Hear, hear.) Lord C. PAGET was not going to defend the gunboats, or to state that they were perfect in all respects. The best proof that the Admiralty did not think them perfect was that the gunboats now in process of construction were built of a very superior form, and would constitute a much im proved armament. His hon. friend (Sir F. Smith) was mis taken if he supposed the Admiralty were breaking up these vessels. From the moment it was found they were in a de fective state the Admiralty directed them to be left, so that the contractors might see them for themselves, and with the view to any ulte . rior measures. With regard to the mor tar-boats at Chatham to which his hon. friend had alluded, he feared it was too late to prevent them from being broken up. As to the future, the Admiralty would leave them as they were, until it was decided what course was to be pur sued in regard to that class of vessels. Sir. C. NAPIER concurred in the opinion that this was a subject which could not be too often discussed. (" Oh, oh," and a laugh.) It was a most important question, for on it depended the lives of our seamen and the defences o ;he country. (Hear.) 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 ofinspec tors, although, as the work was carried on during the night, instead of fewer there should have been more of these offi cers in attendance than usual. The hon. member for Ports mouth had said very truly that these gunboats were unfit for any service but that for which they were orginally in tended—to makO short voyages, not far from our own shores, and to act on an enemy's coast. If we were to go on build ing these small craft, we ought to built a very different sort of vessel, 40 hardly thought it would be safe to trust so important a matter in the hands of the Admiralty as at pre- sent constituted, seeir)g that their previous efforts had proved so completely failures. Vow could it bo 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 re- gard to professional merit ? Ho could hardly re collect a 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. (A Voice—Sir George Cockburn.) Well, he owned Sir George Cockburn was a distinguished officer; but during the whore 18 years that he was at the Admiralty scarcely a single improvement , - ;ook place. In the War Department there were the Adju. :ant-General, the Quartermaster-General, an'i their respec tive deputies, who could be employed to inquire into any thing that went wrong and prepare a report on the subje3t. But the services of no similar officers were at the disposal of the Admiralty, although in the case of the recent muti nies, they would have been found of great value. When the Admiralty wished to make an inquiry into any irregu- larity on the spot where it occurred, so many of their lord. ships went down in their yachts, which was very beauti fully fitted up and well stocked with wine, and enjoyel themselves as though they were a mere party of pleasure He suggested 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 them selves. 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 adminis tration of Lo d St. Vincent had been subjected to a good deal •f criticism. Now, Lord St. Vincent entered upon the duties of First Lord at a time when the fleet was in a deplefable state, but he succeeded in re• establishing discipline. He wished we had another like him to re-establish discipline now, for it had almost disappeared in our navy. He feared that as long as the navy was governed as at present no true economy would ever 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 were made use of when the frigates were found to be failures. Lord Spencer's gunboats, called after his dogs, 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 had made of it. There really ought to be a committee of inquiry into the government of the navy. Admiral WALCOTT thought the names of the contrac tors ought not to be given until the inquiry entered into was concluded. He thought the honour and reputation of this country were involved—and the lives of many officers imperilled—by the manner in which the contractors built these gunboats, and he hoped the strictest inquiry would be made to ascertain who were the guilty parties. Until that inquiry was made, however, he would pass no sentence on any one engaged in the transaction. (Loud cries of " Divide, divide.") He would do his duty in spite of any interruptions he might receive, and would speak when he thought proper, and for what time he thought proper, not withstanding their cries of " Divide, divide." THE ESTIMATES. Mr. A. SMITH asked the hon. gentleman the Secretary of the Treasury when it was, intended to proceed with the Civil Service Estimates ; how soon -No. 7 of those esti mates would be laid upon the table of tho house, and whe ther the same would contain an estimate for the Commis sioners of Woods and Forests during the current year? Mr. LAING said he would be delighted if he could answer the first question of the hon. gentleman with respect to the (Civil Service Estimates, but that was be yond his control. It would be necessary to get a vote on account before Whitsuntide, and then they could be afterwards discussed. With respect to No. 7, it con tained, as the hon. gentleman knew, the Miscellaneous Es timates, and it was not usual to bring them on until the end of the session. They would be pinted and distributed among hon. members previously, in order that an opportu nity should be afforded to discuss them properly. With re spect to the Commissioner of Works that involved a great constitutional question, and the committee that considered the subject thought the matter ought to be left as it was settled, when the Civil List was agreed on at the accession of her Majesty. Mr. DISRAELI said the proposition of the Government with respect to a vote of credit, was one which the house should always view with suspicion, because it was a mode by which the real examination of the country would bb be evaded. (Hear.) He did not say a word against its adoption by the Government, but he must protest against this course of proceeding, which ought to be looked upon as one of an entirely exceptional character, and which, if per. sisted in, must tend eventually to dispossess the House of Commons practically of any control over the expenditure. He was quite unaware of the particular circumstances which made such a course necessary in this instance. They might be of a satisfactory nature ; but if those demands of votes of credit were only made in order to carry on business in which neither the house nor the country felt any great in terest, he thought the house would hesitate before they agreed to sanction the course proposed by the Government. The motion for the adjournment of the house till Mon day was then agreed to. INS.PECTORS OF CUSTOMS IN"PaIIINA. Mr. WYLD asked 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 ap pointments ; and, if _so, why the correspondence relating to those appointments was not printed in the blue-book of his mission ; if there was any objection to lay this corres pondence 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 em bassy : and, if there was 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 J. RUSSELL said there had been no correspon dence with the Eat:l of Elgin in regard to the appointment of foreign inspectors in Chinese ports, as alluded to by the hon. gentleman to be found in the Foreign-office. There had been some correspondence with Mr. Bruce, but it chiefly related to objections made by the American Minister at Canton, and it would be inconvenient to produce it. There was no account of the appointment of Lord Elgin's secre tary to any office connected with the Chinese Customs, on the contrary, the present system appeared to work very satisfactorily at the ports which were open, but the port of Swatow was not yet open, and therefore there could be no inspectorship. REFRESHMENT MOUSES AND WINE LICENSES BILL. The house then went into committee on this bill, Mr. Massey in the chair, Mr. E. JAMES moved to insert in clause 12, line 31, after the fords " wino licenses," to leave out down to " re spectively" inclusive, and insert ".et`+their discretion, and upon all or any of tho grounds on which they are now en titled to refuse or disallow any license by virtue of the acts now in force regulating the granting of licenses to public houses." His object was to give to the magistrates the same power over refreshment-houses in respect to licenses which they had now as regarded public-houses. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER opposed the amendment, and said the question had been settled on the second reading of the bill. Mr. HARDY said he would support the amendment. They had no right to got rid of the powers of the magistrates to grant licenses by a side-wind such as this was. He also ob jected to the clause as leaving out the important element of character. Sir J. V. SHELLEY thought large towns were not fairly dealt with, that beer-shops generally were well con ducted, and that magistrates should be deprived of the powers which they now possessed. After a few words from Mr. KEn SEYMER, • Sir W. JOLLIFFE said he thought that if magistrates had any power, it should be that which they now had. Mr. AYRTON supported the amendment. Mr. S. ESTCOURT thought that the competition of the proposed new system would be injurious. Sir W. MILES said the three systems of licensing would not work well together. He thought they ought to go to the division either as the friends of the bill or as its enemies. The committee divided, and the numbers were= For the amendment Against it Majority ----37 The amendment was accordingly lost. On the motion that clause 12 stand part of the bill, Sir W. JOLLIFFE objected to the whole clause. He thought that magistrates should enforce the law and police regulations, but that they should have nothing to do with granting or preventing the grant of those licenses. The clause was then agreed to. Clause 13 was also agreed to. Mr. W. MARTIN next moved that from and after the passing of the act, the 12th clause of the 24th of Geo. 11., commonly called the Tippling Act, should be repealed. After some conversation, in which Mr. Hardy, the Chan cellor of the Exchequer, and Mr. Ayrton took part, the 'motion was withdrawn. Mr. HUME moved that the chairman report progress. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER objected to reporting progress. He proposed that they should go on, to enable them to insert the various clauses in the bill of which he had given notice. He would also agree to the insertion of the clause proposed by the hon. member for Leominster, and if the house would agree to insert these several clauses in the bill they could all then be printed with the bill, which he would propose should then be recommitted, and thus the whole subject would be again brought before the house. Mr. HUME consented to withdraw his motion to report progress. The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER then ~ ~~ moved a elaitee having relation to the fixture of a fine nport a second eonvl,ction Aft er a f ew , r ,yds from Lord 14 1 71tmoY, Sir W. MILES th: •Ide a suggestion on the subject of tit( _clause which did not rea , 2 ll the gallery. The clause was then au " s ied to the bill, as also seven pr , - Taratory to reprinting tl ie other clauses and schsdules bill for recommitment. Amongst . these were Mr. Hard) J A clauses which stood on the paper. • The house then resumed, and Monday il'ext was fixed Lbl r bringing up the report on the bill. REGISTRATION OF BIRTHS (IRELAND) BILL. • Tt is bill, after a short discussion, in which Mr. HIM-. NESSY, Mr. CARDWELL (Secretary for Ireland), and Lord. NAAS took part, was read a second time, the discussion bir be taken upon it, and Mr. Cardwell's bill on the , awe sub - ject on the 4th June. ROMAN CATHOLIC CHARITIES BILL. This bill, on the motion of Mr. BOWYER, was corn mitted pro forma. KEEPERS' LIABILITY BILL. On the motion that the house go into committee on tt bill, some discussion arose in which several hon. men - the rs took part, as to whether the house at so advanced an hg ur (half-past one o'clock) ought to go into committee. The house ultimately resolved itself into commit t ee, when— Sir F. GOLDSMID intimated that he had sevtti .al amendments to propose to the bill. Lord PALMERSTON suggested that the best cour, so would be at that late hour for the Chairman to repo rt progress, and ask leave to sit again. Mr. WIIITESIDE said the bill contained only thrt * short clauses, and that it might be disposed of now. The CHAIRMAN, after some observations by Sir 1 '• Goldsmid, Mr. Whiteside, Mr. Stuart, and Mr. Isaac 8.2.1 reported progress, and the house resumed. LANDLORD AND TENANT (IRELAND) BD ;1 i• Mr. WHITESIDE obtained leave to introduce a bi for consolidating the relations between landlords and tei ~ant. e in Ireland. SUPPLEMENTARY (NAVY) ESTIMATE Mr. WHITBREAD brought up the SUpplemurd ary (Navy) Estimates, which were ordered to lie on the. to ble. Tho other business on the paper having been disporam I of the house adjourned at ten minutes to two o'clock. POLICE INTELLIGENCE—May 17. MAR LB OROU G H-STREET. -- SIR CHAIM, Eg NAPIER AND HIS HOUSEKEEPER.—EIizabeth Jia s kins, late housekeeper to Admiral Sir Cha; dies Napier, K.C.8., Albemarle-street, was re-examined before ir. Beadon, on a charge of embezzling va rious sums of money received by her for the p ty ment of tradesmen's bills, amounting in. the t+t Ital to about £2OO. Mr. Wontner again attended for the prosecu'e ion, and Mr. Mint for the prisoner. Sir Charles Napier deposed that a specific • sum was given the prisoner for the purpose of pi sing certain tradesmen's bills, which tradesmen were now to be examined, and said the prisoner • had been some years in his service, and was discharged in February last, at which time, some wages t i ing due, she was desired to call for the amount,, but had not. The accounts began to pour in next a'ay, and had been coming in ever since, in conseq no nce of which he applied to the police. On the itlth inst. he accompanied Sergeant Rogers to ..51 teP herd's-bush, where he found her, and told her the tradespeople had sent in for the money. She s aid that the receipts and bills paid were in , her trunk, left behind. He told her he had looked a nd found none, and she said he had better go and t Jar his debts, and he paid his debt of duty by gi-vtng her into custody. Sometimes he paid her at thilei of the month for bills which had arisen, that she might liquidate them. She was accustomed to hand him the book produced, showing how much was due to the different tradespeople. In Febrmary last year she charged him£7 16s 11-1 as due to the grocer, and £3 12s 81d to greengrocer,; to the fisl'i moilger and poulterer, £4 Os 91d; and to the cost fectfoner, £1 2s ; and he gave her the money to pa" these. items. In March she charged £5 7s 40 far the butcher, £7 13s 7d for fish and poultry, £7 lid for confectionary, and £8 15s 20 for grocery, and those sums he also gave her, when she signed her na me, "E. Jenkins," as paid. • In the following month of April she charged £5 2s lid due to the grocer, £4 15s 6d to the fishmonger, £l2s id to the poulteri tr, and these sums he (Sir Charles) also gave her. Ere had heard letters had been sent him by the tra( iespeople ' but never received them, and be lieved t hey had been intercepted. Cross -examined—She entered his service just be fore he went to the Baltic. Accounts were settled all up before ho left for the Baltic. There had been no rows ttbout the money with her. He scrutinised accounts. Sometimes ho paid by cheque, made out to himself, and sometimes by cash. He regularly kept accounts, and had the books at home. Came home at Ole end of the year 1854 or beginning of 1855. He , left his house while away to Miss Cater, }legging her to let it in his absence. On his return he found the prisoner in the house. The balance each month wi is paid up, and generally an advance towards the tinsuing one. In February, a sum of money was paik 1 to the prisoner for servants, sweep ing chimney s , a ,nd other items, amounting to £6l 9s 111 d. Several tradesm. en having given their evidence, Mary Bowen. housemaid to Sir Charles, also de posed that the prisoner prepared her book for Sir Charles every month. Sergeant John Rogers, 6 A, proved his appre hension of the prisoner at kihepherd's-busb, and - corroborated the statement previously deposed to by Sir Charles. On searching the place he found the desk produced, containing a quantity of bills of Sir Charles, paid and unpaid, and the private letter addressed to Sir Charles now handed in. He had much difficulty in tracing the prisoner in conse quence of her moving about from place to place, and was engaged two months in that duty. Sir Charles said he would swear that he had never received the private letter alluded to and noW shown to him. Mrs. Lawrence, recalled, put in evidence two letters, dated Horndcan, from the p r i soner a b o ut her bills due, in which she stated she would call on her when she came to town and pay up, at the same time telling her not to call or send to Albemarle street. The depositions being read over and signed, the prisoner, by direction of her solicitor, reserved her defence, and was committed for trial. TILE MAILS. MAILS DUE. Australia, Ceylon, and • Mau.ritius (via South ampton) May 19. Do. (via Marseilles) June 4. Bahamas and Havana (via Now York) .. Juno 7. Canada, &c. (via Cork) May 16. Cape of Good Hope, &c. June 1. tChina, Penang, and Singapore (via S'ampton) May 19. Do. (via Marseilles) May 27. Gibraltar (via Southampton) .• May 19. India (Calcutta), Ceylon, &c. (via Southampton) May 19. Do. (via Marseilles) May 27. India (Bombay), (via Southampton) .. May 25. Do. (via Marseilles) .. May 19. Lisbon, Brazils, Buenos Ayres, &c. June 5. Lisbon, Vigo, and Oporto .. • .. May 21. Malta, Egypt, and Aden (via Southampton) .. May 19. Do. (via M arse ill es ) May 19. United States, California, &c. (pi a C or k) .. M ay 16. Western Coast of Atrica, Madeira, Teneriffo .. May 10 West Indies qnd gacific, Carthgena, Cuba, &c. May 29. A report recently addressed to Sir C. Wood by Mr. W. Purdon, C 41., executive engineer in the Punjaub, affords the following testimony to the remunerative charac ter of the Punjaub Railway :—" The remarkably favourable nature of the country over which this line is to run and its low cost as compared with other lines in India, will enable it to carry at much lower rates than elsewhere. So great is the passenger traffic tver this line of country that it will probably be found as much as the railway can deal with; this kind of traffic, as a question of dividend, is the most remunerative." BIRTHS. BoosEy.--on the 15th inst , at 50, Peinbridge-villas,West bourne-grove, the wife of Charles Boosey, of Hadley, of a son.' GERMAN.—On the 16th inst., at 63, Inverness-terrace, Kensington-gardens, the wife of Captain German, of a daughter. LEVERSON.—On the 16th inst., the wife of Montague R. Leverson, of 14, Marlborough-road, London, N.W., of a son. SAYER.—On the 11th inst., at Gibraltar, the wife of Capt. Frederick Sayer, of a son. YELYERTON.—On the 7th inst., at 2, Smithgrove-terrace, Cork, the wife of Major the Hon. William Yelvetton, of a son. MARRIAGES. CUMMING—Coox.E.—On the 14th inst., at the Church of St. Gabriel s, Warwick-square, Pimlico, Hugh Mac pherson Cumming, Esq., to Emma Spencer Mary, only child of T. P. Cooke, Esq., of 38, Woburn-square, and Ryde, Isle of Wight. OAKELEY—PARsoNs.--On the 16th inst., at St. James's Church, Piccadilly, Sir Ch ar l es William Atholl Oakeley, Bart , to Ellen, only child of John Meeson Parsons, Esq., of Angley Park, Cranbrook, and Raymond's-biildings, Gray's-inn. DEATHS. BYRON.—On the 16th inst . , al; 11, St. George's•terrace, Regent's-park, Anne Isabellg, Baroness Noel Byren, widow of the late Lord Byron. BARRINGTON..—On the 16th inst., at 19, Eaton-plate, the Hou. Augustus Barrington, second surviving son of George, fifth Viscount Barrington, in the 62d year his age. PALK.--On the 16th inst., at Haldon House, Exeter, Sir Lawrence Vaughan Palk, Bart., aged 67. TOTTIE.—On the 10th inst., at Leeds, Thom. Wm. Tottie, Esq., aged 87. VYVYAN.—On the 14th inst., at St. Helier's, Jersey, Col. Richard Vyvyan, late of Trewar-park, Cornwall. LONDON: Printed and Published by MURDO YOUNP, of No. 112, Strand, Printer, at ThiSun Office, No. 112, Strand, in the Precinct of the Savoy, in the county of Middlesex, Friday, May 18, 1860,_ ■