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 was 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 English naturalisation. 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 sunder 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

After a few ,r,yds from Lord 14171tmoY,
Sir W. MILES th:
•Ide a suggestion on the subject of tit(
_clause which did not rea,2ll the gallery.
The clause was then au"sied to the bill, as also seven
pr,-Taratory to reprinting tl ie
other clauses and schsdules
bill for recommitment. Amongst . these were Mr. Hard) JA
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.