The Sun.
London, England, 1854-05-10 00:00:00

IMPERIAL': PARLIAMENT.

HOUSE OF LORDS--(YESTERDAY.)
UNAUTHORISED NEGOTIATIONS BILL.
Lord CAMPBELL, in moving the second reading of this
bill, said, though it extended the penal law of thecountry,
be hoped it would operate only by way of preventing the
evil against which it was directed, and that after it passed
into law, such evil would cease to exist. The bill would
not interfere with any natural or constitutional right of
the subject. Legislation on the subject was called for
by the evils already experienced, and the still greater
evils to be apprehended. (Hear.) There could not
be the slightest doubt, that, by the law of
nations, negotiations between independent States could
only be legitimately' carried on fly the Government of
those States, or by ministers or ambassadors duly autho-
rised for the purpose. The necessity for such a measure
as this had been felt in the United States. When Adams

cas president of the republic, and Jefferson vice presi-
lent, a bill was introduced into Congress, and passed

into law, making the offence of a citizen enterini into
unauthorised negotiations on behalf of the United
States with foreign powers, a misdemeanour, punishable
on conviction by a fire not exceeding 5,000 dollars, and
imprisonment for s term not less than six months, or
more than three years. The present bill treated the of-
fence also as a misdemeanour, but inflicted merely a no-

urinal punishment. The United States Bill became law
in 179, by large majorities, and be was informed that
it had worked most beneficially, as from that period

until now there had not been a single prosecution upon
it, the whole citizens having faithfully and religiously
observed its provisions. When Mr. Pitt wished to check
the ambition of the Empress Catherine of Russia in 1799,
and had prepared an armament for the purpose, his de-
signs were frustrated by the improper interference of the
Opposition. Addresses had been presented from societies
in this country to the National Convention of France,
at the commencement of the revolutionary period, ex-
citing the French to make war against our allies. For
these offences the law provided no remedy. In the year
1848 a deputation, headed by Mr. Smith O'Brien, waited.
upon M. Lamartine, who represented the then govern-
ing powers of France, praying France to interfere by
armed force for the establishment of independence in Ire-
land. The next case to which he alluded was that of
the address presented by Sir James Duke to Louis Na-
poleon, praying him to continue at peace with this
country ; and the last was that of the deputation of
Quakers who went to pay homage to the Czar Nicholas.
He admitted that in these cases the motive was harmless ;
but with respect to the deputation to St. Petersburg, he
said it had been attended with grave inconveniences. It
was, therefore, time to prevent the recurrence of such
proceedings. Having anticipated and answered several
objections to legislation in such cases, and quoted pre-
cedents, he mentioned his willingness to'refer the bill to
a select committee.

Lord LYNDHURST, in objecting to the bill, denied
that by the law of nations it was illegal for individuals
belonging to one State to have intercourse with the
Government of another State. He specially objected
to the general powers of the bill, first as calculated to
prohibit the intercourse of Roman Catholics with the
See and Court of Rome ; and next, that it would tend
to restrain all intercourse, even that of a commercial
character, with foreign States. Incidentally, the noble
and learned lord stated that the bill as it stood would,
had it been law, have subjected to the penalties of a
misdemeanour the deputation who interceded at Flo-
rence on behalf of the Madiai. Nor could any such
difficulties be overcome by the expedient of a license
from the Secretary of State ; and he denied that the act
of the Congress of the United States,' to which allusion
had been made, had any resemblance whatever to the
present bill.
The Earl of SHAFTESBURY did not think the cases
mentioned by Lord Campbell were of sufficient import-
ance to deserve legislation ; and he further objected to
the bill as an interdiction against the interference of
Englishmen in such cases as that of the Madiai. All
Englishmen had a natural right, if any foreign Govern-
ment oppressed their Protestant co-religionists, to repre-
sent that case to the foreign Government in question ;
and he would never consent to the abolition of this privi-

lege.
The Earl of ELLENBOROUGH hoped that his noble
friend, who so strongly asserted the right of interfering with
foreign states on behalf of his own co-religionists, would
not confine the right to his own church, but that he
would extend the same right to others to interfere for
their co-religionists—as, for instance, on behalf of the
members of the Greek Church in Turkey. (Hear.)
He interfered merely in the discussion for the purpose of
saying that the right of interference laid down by the
noble earl might be carried to an inconvenient extent.
(Hear, and a laugh.)
The Bishop of OXFORD observed that the bill would
take away a remarkably inconvenient mode of snaking
useful representations to foreign• Governments without
our own Governni-eiiTheing-cdmpromised by them.
Lord BEAUMONT spoke in objection to the mea-
sure, for which he said no case had been made out.
The Earl of ABERDEEN said, so great was his re-
spect for the noble and learned lord, that he should
feel unwilling to vote against the second reading'
of the bill ; but he must have seen that the ob-
jections urged against it were so weighty and so nu-
merous, that it was impossible it could pass without
great and extensive alterations. (Hear.) He would
not object to the second reading of the measure, which
a view of sending it before a select committee ; but at
the same time he thought the objections urged were so
serious that it would be difficult to remove them by any
alterations. If, however, his noble and learned friend
persevered in wishing to have the bill read a second
time, with a view of effecting those extensive and fun-
damental alterations, he would not oppose the second
reading. But if he might venture, without offence Or.
presumption, humbly to make a recommendation to
him, he would suggest that the prospect was so small of
effecting his object that it would be a better course not
to press the second reading.
The Marquis of CLANRICARDE would also re-
commend his noble and learned friend to withdraw the
bill.
Lord BROUGHAM thought that many of their lord-
ships had not fully considered the provisions of the bill.
Many of the cases cited would not come within the bill
at all. At the same time he would strongly urge upon
his noble and learned friend attentively to weigh the
difficulties which had been started. He believed that
considerable alterations would be required in the bill.
It would be necessary to provide, for instanoe, that the
owner of a vessel which might be seized by the act of a
foreign Government should not be tried for a misde-
meanour, because he made representations on the sub-
ject to that Government. It might.be said let him write
to the Secretary of State for authorisation. But he
might want the vessel immediately. He thought some
better check should be provided than that of the sig-
nature of the Secretary of State. With regard to re-
presentations on the. eubject. of, relig,ioa, Ise thought that
these should even more than others be made through the
regular and constitutional authorities, and not by private
persons.
Lord CAMPBELL said that noble lords could not
have studiously considered the basis on which the bill
was conceived. The principle of the bill was to prevent
unauthorised communications between British subjects,
who pretended to represent the English nation, or a
portion of the English nation and foreign Governments
or potentates, respecting political or national affairs.
That was the principle of the bill, and he did not wish
to go farther. But if that principle was not carried out
by the language employed, be would agree. to any alter-
ation which would effect the object he
had in view.
(Hear.) His noble friend referred to a very innocent
conference which he had with the
with him political
he Pope. He had a
long conversation, and discussed
topics with much earnestness, and he hoped with
I success. He told him that he had been
some
tiireely misinformed with respect to the godless
colleges—that every provision had been made for the
integrity of the Roman Catholic faith. He believed
that some good did arise from that interview, but
interviews of that kind by private travellers, prevent rere-
senting any one, would not, in the least, be pd
by this bill. Questions respecting vessels, not being
national questions, would not be touched by the bill.
His noble and learned friend (Lord Lyndhurst) did not
object to the American bill. He bad no objection to
introduce the very words of that act into the present
bill. He believed that interferences by large bodies who
went to foreign states in a representative capacity, had
a dangerous tendency, and were calculated to disturb
the peace of the world ; and it was with a view of pre-
venting such representations that he introduced the bill.
If their lordships were to say that nothing should be
done to stop unauthixised communications it would have
a very injurious effect. The present moment was pecu-
liarly favourable for legislating on the question.
The gallery was cleared for a division, but none took
place, it being agreed that the bill should be read a
second tune, and referred to the• select committee now
sitting on the Cannt.Vtaw Protetiure•Bill.
CHURCH BUILDING ACTS CONTINUANCE
BILL.
This bill passed through committee.
The house adjourned at five minutes after eight o'clock.

HOUSE OF COMMONS—(YESTERDAY.)
IRISH MEDICAL CHARITIES.
Sir DENHAM NORREYS asked the Chief Secre•
tary for Ireland, whether he purposes, during
the pre-
sent session, to introduce a bill to place those of the
Irish Medical Charities which are still supported by
Grand Jury Assessment under the charge of the Com-
missioners for the Regulation of Medical Charities in
Ireland.
proSpirosJal.
oYnOtUheNsGut
subject
tedin hteheshcoouuldrsebe ableoftht
eo makepre a
en t
session.
THE CHANCELIIt,EOSROLOUFTITOHNEs. EXCHEQUER'S
The
maOltn, that part of the resolutions relating to the duties on
Mr.. E. BDAULNLcroolDtoEmorovseealloamoernddenrrntTe e
.
agreed yesterday that this report should be brought up
to-day, but without discussion.
Mr. E. BALL said he was himself taken by surprise,
as he was sure the house was, at the Chancellor of the
Exchequer announcing that he purposed raising the ad-
ditional revenue lie required by imposing an extra duty
of 50 per cent. on the malt tax. This he locked upon
as a re-opening of that party warfare which he
hoped had been buried fur ever respecting protection,' _
and which, he appealed to the other side of the house, if
the gentlemen sitting on his (the Opposition) side had
not done their best to allay, and which it was now the
more necessary to allay when the country•was engaged
in a war. He begged to move a negative to the fourth
resolution of the right hon. gentlenian, by omitting the
word " malt." (Hear, and a laugh.\
Mr. BEXTINCE: seconded the motion.
P02.9449"4114a Af Armragiiiiii4jo
_ _ .