The Sun.
London, England, 1862-02-28 00:00:00

TBIS DAY'S SHIPPING.

LONDON, Feb. 28.—Wind this day at noon—North ;
moderatebreeze, and cloudy at times.
PORTSMOUTH, Feb. 27.—Arrived—Antige, for Rio de
Janeiro.

DESPERATE FIGHT BETWEEN A RAT AND A
RABBIT.—On Monday evening Mr. Parfrey, of Clutton,
who is an amateur breeder of rabbits, was sitting down in
his house, when he heard an unusual noise, He imme-
diately got up and went to the spot where the sound pro-
ceeded from, and saw a desperate battle fought in the rab-
bit cub between one of his rabbits and a large-sized rat. He
watched the conabatan• a for a few moments with great in-
terest, and saw the rabbit catch hold of the rat by the back
of its neck, turn it upside down, and then with its fore
paws rip up its antagonist, and nearly sever its head from
the body. The rabbit, however, did not escape with a whole
skin, for, after the fight, it was discovered that it had re-
ceived several bites about the breast and head, but not of a
severe character. As the rat was being removed it was
found to have been one of the largest barn rats ever seen is
the neighbourhood. The rabbit was a fully grown one,
with young ones.—Bridgewater Mercury.
FLOGGING IN THE NAVY—
-764 Inth
flogging was inflicted in the navy
number of men liable to corporal punishment
beinglu in 1869
that is, one flogging in the year to 72 men.tiemey;athrseslt3Bc7l9ol;
nr and iknearl_ improvement
year by year. There are in the return
18y58doounbeletoth48e
there was one flogging to 61 men,
ed
men ; so that there has been a very
ma
sh.
ps
with not a lash inflicted, which
is d
number marked as exempt in the return 3
for 1858, an
rn for 1860 87
more than in 1859. The ships in which men were flogged
differ very greatly in ther
,oportion of punishments; in tw
nn.
instances in 1860 there were ten floggings and not 150 men.
In 1858 32,420 lashes were inflicted ; in 1859, 30,329; in
1860, 26,201. Drunkenness and insubordinati are the
chief cause of those disgraceful punishments,,

I MPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF LORDS-YESTERDAY.

The LORD CIIA.NCELLOR took his seat on the woolsack
at five o'clock.

THE ITALIAN PROCLAMATION.

The Earl of DERBY said in consequence of the an-
nouncement he received the ether evening that the Govern-
ment had no knowledge of the proclamation to which he
referred, which he must confess took him somewhat by
surprise, he found it necessary to alter the terms of
his motion. He had furnished the noble earl with the
Italian and French newspapers, and he felt certain that he
would receive an answer which would give satisfaction to
the country. The proclamation had been issued at Le -
schara, and although it was addressed to a comman-
dant of brigade, yet it was sued by parties respon-
sible to the Government of Italy. The noble earl then
read the document in question, which set forth that no
person was to set foot within a certain territory, and that
all persons would be shot who were found in the, possession
of more than one day's sustenance, and treated as
brigands. He would leave the document in all its native
atrocity, which purported to be issued by a government
elected by the general voice of the Italian people, to be dealt
with by the noble earl. He did not think it was a proper
way' to restore tranquillity after a district had been
seriously disturbed. It was calculated to make the
whole district to which it referred a desert ;
and it was unheard-of cruelty to make the innocent
suffer for the guilty, and a disgrace to any person wear-
ing the garb of a soldier to have issued such a docu-
ment. The noble earl had remonstrated against the sink-
ing of stole ships at the mouth of the harbour of Charles-
ton, but that was nothing cempared to the atrocity of this
proclamation. What he wished to ask was, whether the
Government had yet received any information relative to
the genuineness of the document in question from Sir Jas.
Hudson, and whether he could state if Sir James
had expressed to the Italian Government the feeling
such a proclamation would excite in this country, and if Sir
James had not communicated the information to the coun-
try, whether he was prepared to ask why such had not been
done,

Earl RUSSELL said—ln rising to answer the noble earl
I will first address myself to the character of the notification
or proclamation which he has brought under your lordships'
notice. I entirely agree with all that the noble earl has
said of the character of that proclamation. (Hear.) I think
nothing can be more cruel or more barbarous than to issue
such a proclamation, involving the innocent with the guilty,
and spreading desolation over a large district of country, in-
terfering with the pursuits of industry, and making the
Government a terror to all persons. (Hear.) I should add,
also, that I think such a proclamation would be most im-
politic. (Hear.) This is not the manner in which a country
can be pacified. This is not the manner in which the inha-
bitants of any district can be reconciled, if it be necessary,
to the rule of the Goverment which has been placed over
them. But with regard to the authenticity of this document
I must say I have 11J evidence. In the first place, it would
seem that no person would venture to publish in a news-
paper, certainly at Turin, whatever the politics of that news-
paper might be, a document of this nature which was not
genuine, casting upon the character of the Government
which rules at Turin an imputation which would be most
calamitous. The newspaper in question is the Armonia.
It is a newspaper well known for its strong political and
ecclesiastical opposition to the Government of King 'Victor
Emmanuel. But perhaps your lordships will allow me to
mention a conversation I once had with the late Count
Cavour, which bears upon the subject. I stated to Count
Cavour that his opponents said that they were under great
disadvantages, for while the liberal newspapers which
were guilty of libel were always acquitted by the tribunal
before which they were tried, those which defended the
cause of the injured institutions of the country as it was
called, which was the cause of despotism and barbarity
as he should call it, when brought before the tribunal were
always convicted. I said to him, " I think that is a
charge which is made against you by those who are your
political enemies." Count Cavour said, " It is perfectly
true that newspapers on the one, side are generally ac-
quitted, and certainly when the newspapers on the other
side are brought before the tribunal they have been gene-
rally punished. But this inference," he said, " has struck
me so much that I have given an order that no Govern •
went prosecution should be instituted against those news-
papers ; they may say in safety what they please, they may
libel me as much as they like; I have determined that they
shall not be prosecuted for anything they may say."
(Hear.) This may perhaps account, in some degree, for
the license which this newspaper gives itself, and I have
heard that there have been instances in which documents
have been published in this newspaper which afterwards
have been found not to be genuine. (Hear, hear.) I trust
this may be one of the instances in which documents not
genuine and real have been published in that newspaper—
and I am further confirmed in this by the absence of testi-
mony on the one side, and what I have read in these papers
on the other. In the first place this proclamation, which
was published on the 19th February, at Turin, has not been
noticed by our Minister at Turin in any manner, nor has it
been noticed by her Majesty's consul at Naples. Although
it had been supposed to be published in a Neapolitan news-
paper, and in that case it would have naturally come
under his observation. (Hear, hear.) In the next place,
while there was no evidence to prove the genuineness of the
document, he had been told that it bore a striking resem-
blance to a proclamation published in 1810 by the then Go-
vernment of Naples. (Hear, hear.) This, I confess, gives
me great reason to doubt the genuineness of the document.
I should be glad, certainly, for the sake of the Italian Go-
vernment, and I may add, as the noble lord las said, for
the sake of humanity, if the proclamation should prove not
to be genuine, and that no such notification had been issued
by an officer of the King of Italy. There have been, no
doubt, in other instances great severities practised against
those who are brigands, and who are disturbing the south-
ern provinces of Italy. I must state that I believe the pre-
sent condition of the Government of the King of Italy in the
southern provinces is put to a very hard trial. There is not
existing, as the noble lord would seem to imply, any civil
war in Italy, and theee who are found committing murder
and robbery are found generally in parties of 10 or 20 per-
sons, that number being rarely exceeded, though they
sometimes muster 40 or 50 together. They come into this
country, they occupy these woods, trey are attacked by the
regular troops of the King of Italy, and they fly back when
they are dispersed by the regular troops, and the country is
for the moment free from them. They fly back into the
territories of the Pope. At the frontier of those territories
the Italian troops are stopped, these men are disarmed,they
are given up to the Government of the Pope, and though
committing murders and robberies, these men are left free
to go where they please, and they return as brigands, and
will do so again and again. There is not of course much to
be expected from the Popish Government of friendship to
the King of Italy, but it is not the common course of con-
duct between neighbours, r a course tending to the preser-
vation of peace. These are not men who are carrying on a 1
civil war; they are men who, many o“hem, in the time of
Francis 11., committed their robberies and murders, taking
the name of carbonari, or any other name to cover their
designs; and now and then I dare say they may take
the name of servants of the deposed King of Italy. These
disturbances have given great anxiety to the Government of
Turin. I have just received a communication, stating that
Baron Ricasoli had declared that during the winter months
brigandage had diminished, in consequence:of the scarcity
of food and shelter, but it was likely that as spring was ad-
vancing these disorders would be renewed. I must say, how-
ever, that issuing such proclamations as that which has been
quoted is not the best way to support the King's authority ;
but, on the other hand, it is frightful to see that the cause
of the exiled sovereign cannot be sustained except by small
parties of brigands, maintained in the hope that their pre-
sence may serve as an argument to show that the Govern-
ment of the King is incapable of reducing the country to
order. But in spite of all these obstacles, I have the greatest
confidence that the Government of the King of Italy will
justify the selection of the people. I have stated here, as
elsewhere, my admiration of the noble attitude of the
Italian people, of which, when compared with that of other
peoples in a state of revolution, they have no reason to be
ashamed. The country has, in my opinion, shown itself
worthy of the liberty which it seeks ; and I trust that be- I
fore long their independence will be recognised by all the
leavers of Europe. (Hear.)
The Earl of DERBY said that the noble earl had made
a eloquent and impassioned speech, but he had not
°l:layered his question. What he (Lord Derby) wanted to
tinZr was, whether the noble earl had received any intima-
tion
this supposed proclamation from Sir James
Hudson, The noble earl might have telegraphed and ob-
tained information since Tuesday last. What he wished
to know Was, whether the noble earl had sent, or meant to
send to Sir J. he -
son, for information; and to ask. him
whether he had
Aue any representations to the /Tient of Turin.
the document to turn out
Govern-
genuine, he u fished ta'kriasing
W whether it was the intention of
her Majesty's Government to make any representations to
the court of Turin.
Earl RUSSELL had alreadyatated that he had received
no information from Sir James Hudsonl:especting the docu..
r genuueut
andineness . He had alsothe firs thinhis r
to hedonlEw Tauseton ascertain
had
suspecting its
; g
if it was genuine. He had telegraphed t
and
not as yet received an answer. Should the doelaea,ent turn
out to be genuine, he should make such ea
mraurneations as
he thought fit to the Government of the King of Italy.
but
the ease was quite different from that of the stone fleet,
if be mentioned the matter at all it would be in and
tfrirei of ,‘,A
friendship to
othe Italian Government.
ri e Ba 411318 °I
NIESBURY said that if the noble earl
found the document to be genuine, and that his agents in
Turin had made no representathiios opinion representations
of their conduct.respecling it, the noble
earl should state to his agents
So much exaggeration was there on both sidesing affairsltily,t in
it was impossible to get at the truth respect.n
that country unless from the faithful reports of our own
agents.
The Duke of ARGYLL hoped that the house would not
leap to the conclusion that the proclamation was genuine.
• Re had on the previous evening met an Italian gentleman,
who had just arrived from Turin, He asked this gentleman
. about the proclamation, and his answer was that he had

heard of such a proclamation appearing in the newspapers
but that on inquiry he had found it to be a forgery—a mere
rechauffee, in fact, slightly altered, of a proclamation of
Murat's in 1810, when he was engaged in pu, ,ing down
the brigands. He (the Duke of Argyll) shout] regret very
much the publication of this proclamation if it should turn
out to be genuine.

The Earl of DERBY thought that the noble duke should
have communicated his information to the noble earl.

LAW OF LUNACY.

The LORD CHANCELLOR, who was most imperfectly
heard, rose to call the attention of their lordships to the
present state of the law of lunacy. It generally required
some flagrant instance to concentrate the public attention
on any defect in our law, and we had recently had such an
instance with respect to the law of lunacy, in an inquiry
which had lasted for 32 days. The subject of that inquiry
had vindicated his title to the management of his affairs,
but he had done so at an expense of not less than £15,000 ;
while the expenses of the petitioners would equal if not ex-
ceed that sum. He had no complaint to make against the
mode in which that inquiry had been conducted by the
learned master or the judge. To produce a better state of
things, he proposed that in cases of lunacy where a jury
was demanded, the matter should be referred to one of the
judges in Westminster-hall, to be there trieras in any ordi-
nary case. This was a most necessary alteration, as their
lordships would see when he adduced some facts connected
with the recent lunacy inquiries'. He found, with respect
to the case of Sir H. Meux, that the expense was £6,940 ;
another was a lady, when the cost was £2,400 ; and another
and antecedent case cost £1,909. Another important point
was the personal examination of the lunatic. At present it
was taken at the close of the proceedings; he proposed that,
subject to the discretion of the judge, it should be taken at
the commencement. He proposed also to confine the medi-
cal testimony to matter of fact, and would confine the in-
quiry to two years from the date of trial. The principle of
the law was-wholly in accordance with that which he had
been stating. They admitted according to the rule the evi-
dence of scientific persons when the subject was one re-
moved from the ordinary sphere of intelligent men, but
when the subject was one on which men of ordinary under-
standing could judge for themselves they did not call fer
scientific evidence. He particularly desired to introduce
into these inquiries the same rules of law which prevailed
in all other inquiries, namely, that scientific evidence should
be received only where in ordinaiy oases it was received, in
the manner whoa he had described, and he felt confident
that their lordships would on reading the bill become con-
vinced of the justice and propriety of these proposed altera-
tions in the law. At present, juries had medical men pre-
sent ed to them, who told them that according to the experi-
ence which they had derived, they concluded that cerebral
disease existed from certain bodily symptoms; while on
the other hand other medical men stated that the symp-
toms relied upon by the former witnesses were easily ac-
counted for, and that from their experience no cerebral dis-
ease existed. Between these learned doctors it was difficult
to arrive at a sound conclusion. Was that a mode inwhich
these great moral inquiries, culminating inresults little short
of those which attached to the most serious crimes, should
be conducted and terminated ? Undoubtedly not. For the
inquiry was simply this—was the individual charged with
lunacy in such a condition as to show him to be a person
dangerous to be at large, and unfit to be trusted with the
management of his own affairs ; and they were only war-
ranted in coming to that conclusion on moral and not on
speculative grounds. It was a well known fact that medical
men jumped to a conclusion upon some half dozen particular
instances which came within the practice of each individual,
and they gave their opinions accordingly, and thus it was
that the experience of one medical man did not coincide with
the experience of another, and hence the confusion which
existed in public inquiries in lunacy. It was his object to
emancipate the proceedings in lunacy from being specula-
tive inquiries, and to place them beyond the reproach which
now attached to them. If their lordships agreed with him
that the law of lunacy ought to be assimilated to the ordi-
nary rules of law, he ventured to predict that the gross ex-
cesses and enormities which had been found to exist when
this description of inquiry had been found necessary accord-
ing to the present mode of procedure would be done away
with. The other portions of the bill were of a practical cha-
racter, and he hoped they would remove the evils which now
existed. It was matter of deep regret that the present pro-
ceedings were too costly and too prolonged to be resorted to
by persons in humble life. A great number of cases of lunacy
occurred where the property was of small amount, and con-
sequently would be wholly exhausted if a commission of
lunacy were issued, the preliminary expenses of which were
not less than £6O. He knew of cases in one of which the
alleged lunatic had saved £96, and in the other £230, and in
such cases it would be an absurd thing to obtain a commis-
sion of lunacy, which would certainly swallow up at least
£6O, and give rise to further litigation. He proposed to
enact that whenever it should appear to the Lord Chancel-
lor that there existed a case of lunacy where the property of
the lunatic did not exceed £l,OOO, it should be competent
to him to take the same course as under a commission of
lunacy, and thus to save all the expenses attending such
commission. He might also mention that criminal lunatics
were provided for in certain prisons, but that no provision
had been made with regard to their property, and he pro-
posed to treat these cases in an equally summary manner.
He would pass on to an important subject, that of the
visitation of lunatics under the protection of the Lord Chan-
cellor, It had been an anxious subject of inquiry in what
way this could be best effected, and to secure.for them the
same supervision and control as those lunatics were subject
to which were under the supervision of the lunacy commis-
sioners. A committee of the House of Commons had re-
ported that it was desirable that the visitation of all luna-
tics should be the same, and he (the Lord Chancellor) had
wished to adopt that report, but on communication with the
noble earl near him (the Earl of Shaftesbury) it was found
to be impossible for the commissioners to undertake the
duty of visiting the Chancery lunatics. He therefore pro-
posed that there should be an extended power given to the
Lord Chancellor to appoint two medical gentlemen, and
one legal gentleman, to perform this duty exclusively ; and
he would remark that it was essential that they should visit
the lunatics at least twice every year, without any previous
arrangements being made, so that the persons under whose
charge the lunatics were should be in constant readiness to
I receive the visitors. There were some other provisions in
the bill, the details of which be would not trouble their
lordships with, but would simply state that these alterations
had been made necessary in consequence of a new condition
of things having arisen since the last act was passed in 1853.
Lord ST. LEONARDS said that, having always taken
a deep interest in the subject now brought forward, he
wished to make a few observations upon it, although he had
not yet seen the bill. He was glad to hear his noble and
learned friend speak in favourable terms of the late trial in
Westminster-hall. But no doubt such prolonged proceed
inns required a remedy. It had been suggested that if the
jury had been allowed to examine Mr. Windham on the con-
clusion of the petitioners' case it would have saved a great
deal of expense. But he (Lord St. Leonards) had no doubt
that the learned person who presided at the trial pursued a
proper course, and one which led to the right result.
\
Whether Mr. Windham was ruined or not was a matter of
perfect indifference to the court ; all that could be regarded
was the due administration of justice. llis noble and
learned friend proposed that all such cases should be tried
before ajudge in Westminster 'hall in the ordinary form, and
he (Lord St. Leonards) approved of that alteration, be-
cause b 0 believed that the opinions of a judge would have
gree'.er effect on counsel and jury than those of a master.
Questions of lunacy ought to be questions of fact, and
whether the alleged lunatic was or was not capable of tak-
ing care of his property. (Hear.) The act of 1853 provided
that there should be unanimity in twelve jurymen, and in
Order to arrive at that result 23 were selected as jurors,
leaving 12 as a majority; but he did not think that that
was a convenient mode of trial. (Hear, hear.) In an
ordinary case the master's jurisdiction was a perfectly un-
objectionable jurisdiction, and was exeresed with great
advantage to the public. The bill of 1853 introduced the
new provision that, in order to prevent unnecessary trials
for lunacy, the Lord Chancellor himself should see the
lunatic, so that if there was no doubt as to the man's state
of mind, the Lord Chancellor ceuld act without the inter-
vention of a jury. As the law now stands, therefore, the
property of an alleged lunatic was carefully guarded from
being wasted by unnecessary expense. But in a case like
that which recently occurred, where a man was moving
about in society—whether the most desirable was not the
question—where it was certain, from the facts and circum-
stances of it, that an enormous amount of expense would be
incurred, a vast deal of public time wasted, and a great
amount of public scandal exhibited,—in a case of that sort
his noble and learned friend's proposal was exactly what he
(Lord St. Leonards) could wish for. If it -a as to be tried,
let it be tried by a jury in the ordinary way. The next
proposition, however, was somewhat startling. It was that
the inquiry should be limited to the capacity or incapacity
of the person for two years. That was a,matter which re-
quired grave consideration. Beginning with the infancy of
the alleged lunatic, as in the recent case, and going on to
the moment at which he came before the jury, clearly
ought not to be allowed ; but the limitation to two years
would not in all cases admit of a fair examination as to the
existence or non-existence of insanity. In many cases a
much more extended inquiry would be necessary in order to
enable the Lord Chancellor to dispose of the case when it
came back to him. Sometimes it was found that an alleged
lunatic had made a will several years before, and the great
contest was whether at the time of its date and execu-
tion he was sane or insane. The proposition, there-
fore, to limit tho inquiry to two years should not
be hastily adopted. A matter which would require
still more consideration, if possible, was the propo-
sition that in the first instance the alleged lunatic should be
examined by the judge before whom he was to be tried and
the jury. By the present law it was provided that the Lord
Chancellor should examine the alleged lunatic with a view
toi !ee vr-.-..Ziier it was necessary to have a trial before a jury;
but the proposal now marl() by his noble and learned friend
, that in all cases where a trial by jury was ordered, the
alleged lunati:should be in the first instance examined. Now
it should be retamemanbered that a man in that position came for-
ward a marked
ir with an accusation against him,founded
a prima facie easenthe opinion of the Lord Chancellor,
showed
was dearer,
He was on his trial
for life, or that which .
and it required the
greatest possible consideratiol, whether he should be ex-
amiLed before evidence had been
giver; to rebut the