The Sun.
London, England, 1849-05-18 00:00:00

agreed that the detention of that vessel should be con-
tinued. The Treasury declined to interfere, and the
result was that that vessel left for Palermo. The other
left Liverpool also, and just at the time that the Secre-
tary at War of the Sicilians desired. It sailed first to
Marseilles; when it reached that port, the French
Minister taking a different view of the law, with
respect to the detention of ships, did detain and had de-
tained that vessel in the port of Marseilles. He had to
ask if the Noble Lord was aware of these facts, which
be was bound to say he had received from a source
which ho considered one of authority; and whether
the Government was not authorised to detain a vessel
going avowedly to disturb a foreign pewer.
Lord PALMERSTON had no objection to lay the
letters on the table of the House. The subject
had teen fully considered and had been brought
before the Consul, and it had been decided that
there was no right on the part of the British Consul
respect to what the French Government had done. Ac-
cording to the last accounts from Palermo there wss no
Government there. The people lead possession of arms,
and were engaged in protecting themselves against the
Neapolitans. He could state, in reply to the lion. and
Learned Gentleman, that having taken some pains to
discover what had become of the formidable guns
sent to Syracuse, and he had ascertained that they
were now in the possession of the King of the two
siciiies._(Laughter.) He had heard that Colonel Aubery
was sent to this country for the purpose of raising men,
but he had good reason to believe that no men were raised.
With regard to the vessels, it was true that one
steamer did leave from Liverpool. With respect to the
Bombay, which lay in the Thames, the facts were
these:—An application was made by the Neapolitan
Minister for the detention of that vessel, as it was
loaded with men, guns, and ammunition; and as
its leaving this country would be in contravention of the
Foreign Enlistment Act. The question was referred to
the Treasury, the Foreign-office having nothing
to do with the law that prevailed in this
country on the subject. The whole transac-
tion was carried on with the Treasury and the
proper law officers of the Crown, and in consequence of
the legal advice they received, that there was no just
ground for detaining the vessel, it was. released.
Mr. ANSTEY then repeated his questions as to
whether he would have any objection to lay on the tablo
Heytesbury, the Under Secretary
of
Foreign
Affairs, with respect to
aa dispatch
siid o Statew fromfo‘%r erd h
°L
had married the subject of a
Lord Ponsonby, with respect to the refusal of claims
mforaediegnbycioluisntyir; and also a letter to a Mr. Paget, from
e,
she being a Hungerian.
Lord PALMERSTON said, under the guise of ask-
ing
a series of quecions the Hon. and Learned Member
had favoured the Hous'e with as complete and detailed
information as if he had been "our own correspondent."
—(Much laughter.) Ile could not give the Honour-
able and Learned Member the whole details with
to take any cognizance of the property of the individual
in the case alluded to. Instructions had been sent to
communicate that fact to the widow, and that
the British Government had no right to in-
terfere in the matter as her claim must
fall under the cognizance of the court of the
county cf which her husband was a native. With re-
gard to the second case, that of Mr. Paget, he would
look and see if there was any such letter
in his office, and if there was, he should have no objec-
tion to produce it. But that case was very diffarent to
the one previously referred to by the Honourable and
Learned Member. The latter was the case 0. an Austrian
subject, and the question arose in the Austrian courts.
Mr. ANSTEY wished to know whether the law
cfficers of the Crown had been advised with on this
subject.
Lord PALMERSTON said that the doctrine in-
volved bed been plainly laid doe n and settled, and it
was therefore unnecessary to consult the law officers
upon it.

RUSSIAN INTERFERENCE.
Mr. WYLDE wiEhre, to ask the Noble Lord whether
the British Government had sent any protest against the
occupation of Hungary by the Russian troops?—(Hear.)
Lord PALMERSTON said that her Majesty's Go-
vernment had made no protest on the subject.

:Mr. SMITH O'BRIEN.

Lord JOHN RUSSELL having moved that the re-
cord of the judgment of the House of Lords, affirming
the decision of the Court in Ireland against Mr. Smith
O'Brien, be entered as read, proceeded to move that
Mr. Smith O'Brien, who had been convicted of high
treason, should be expelled the House. The Noble
Lord, in making the motion, said that the course he in-
tended to pursue he believed to be without precedent,
hadht ablethenotelgohnviitewted was
wasso, tohfesucreihmae on fatwuhreichasthtoetainlidyivtoidual
in-
capacitate him from holding a scat in that House.
' The precedents he had been able to find upon the
subject had no reference whatever to the
The
eszst wastcase.
I
Those precedents were of two kinds.
on a writ
with respect to high treason. The first caseoilinirt.hFoossutber
a Member of that House having been taken ,
ject was on the 10th of May, 1715. In that case
of rebellion for high treason was expelled the House, and
House
Member boefintgh eirebellion iu
in another case,iv. 000runms
ee
informed
2a2t d
been
J. Carnegie,
June,aorpneeng .0171;_l 6s
q,
~ thea
Scotland; witnesses were called to the bar who proved
the fact, and he was expelled the House, and
a new writ was issued. The other case he had
discovered were cases with regard to which there
might be some doubt as to the nature of the offence,
but they were cases of perjury, conspiracy, and
various offences in the nature of misdemeanour or
which there might be a doubt whether they were of the
nature to require that the House should proceed
to the severe penalty of expulsion. The present
case of Mr. Smith O'Brien was one, and regarded
the House totally without precedent, and was not
similar to the case of Members with respect to i
whom a similar proceeding had been taken to the
one he was now about to adopt. When it was said
that he was in arms against her Majesty, the House
did not take any notice of the fact, but waited
till the conclusion of the proceedings against him.
Mr. Smith O'Brien being convicted of high
treason in Ireland, brought a writ of error against that
conviction in the House of Lords, and that House having
sustained that conviction and affirmed the decision of the
courts in Ireland, it became necessary that he should
make the present motion for Mr. O'Btien's ex-
pulsion from that House. It was unnecessary that
he should say one word on the nature of the
offeuce, because nothing could be more complete
than the conviction and the judgment. With re-
gard to the consequences following on such an
offence, he need only observe that it was
An offence totally unlike the misdemeanours he had re-
ferred
of treason,oprruh Parliament
hold and a
o I
to l
seat that
persons
that i
tt
wasto, i
t
guilty of it were unable to sit in that House.
The consequence was, therefore, that Mr. Smith O'Brien
el
establish in th a t House;
a
having been convicted of high treason, he was cilly dead,
watshehilga
be elected,
waselected, n
net
presi-
dent in modern time of expelling a Member. He had,
and
but hen nubledli not
eve believed b
therefore, consulted with the Speaker and other
authorities as to the course to be taken in the case, and
he had come to the resolution of moving the two follow-
ing resolutions—" Whereas it appears by the records of
this House that Mr. Smith O'Brien has been convicted of
high treason;" and when that resolution vas agreed to,
be should proceed to move--" That a new writ be issued
for election of a knight of the shire for the county of
Limerick, in the room of Mr. William Smith O'Brien,
who had been convicted of high treason." The Noble
Lord then moved the first resolution.
Sir FREDERICK THESIGER suggested that the
word "convicted" had better be altered to " attainted,"
as attainer did not follow convictions, but judgment.
Mr. Smith O'Brien would not be civilly dead until
judgment
had been passed upon him.
ATTORNEY-GENERALthought
The ATTOR the proper
word would be " adjudged guilty of high treason," and,
The resolution having been so altered, it was put from
the chair, and agreed to.
The second resolution was also altered in the same
way and agreed to.
PARLIAMENTARY OATHS BILL.
The House then went into Committee on this Bill.
PRIVILEGE STRANGERS EXCLUDED.

Oa dfaUseTl;eing proposed,
Mr. J. O'CONNELL rose, and pointing to the reporters
gallery, said, Sir, I observe strangers present."
Strangers were then ordered to withdraw, and they
did so accordingly, reporters of course amongst them.
[At our going to press the gallery remained closed.
We were given to understand that a discussion took
place upon the course adopted by Mr. J. O'Connell,
in the course of which he was entreated by more than
one Honourable Member to abandon his determination.
This, we were further informed, be refused to do, upon
which ho was assailed with loud and repeated hisses
and " bahs," which reverberated throughout the lobbies
and galleries.]
Tho House then proceeded with the regular business
before it,
Which, of course, will not be conveyed to the
public through the ordinary channels of intelligence.