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

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 legislation on the
subject. If you wanted to exemplify this in your own his-
tory, the lecture which you read to the FraLch 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 Kings
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 not 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
money 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-4 did not say that.
Sir H. CAIRNS—I 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-Geneml,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 lot
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
one moment tolerate such a proceeding? (Fleet-, 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.) He therefore, wished
to know whether her Majesty's Government were prepared
to take up this matter, to ascertain whether a prosecution
could be instituted, and, if it could, to undertake it at once
—(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 coarse
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 man ever pursued, and who had gained the esteem/
admiration, and affection of all those who had served under
him ; what right had the hon. and learned gentleman to
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 cow se 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 ? 'When the Pope
found that there was an union of powerful forces against
his small State what could he do but gather together troops
to resist them ? That was his object, not to massacre his
subjects, nor to ill-treat those whom he had always endea-
voured to benefit, but to resist those foreign Filibusters who
wished to raise a rebellion in his States. That he believed
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 Were
in the habit of serving foreign States. In the reign of
George IL, on account of the Jacobite conspiracy agains
the English Crown, it was found necessary to pass an ea

for the purpose of preventing foreign enlistment; and in
1814, 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-
meat in the service of anybody claiming to have any au-
thority in a foreign country. Undoubtedly English sub-

ects 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 English naturalisation. That application was refused,
as being contrary to the law of this country; but the Home
Secretary never dreamt of finding 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
izt the array of a friendly Power; and if the Government had