The Sun.
London, England, 1860-05-26 00:00:00

is suspected. (Hear, hear.) Innocence is no protection
there--(cheers)—and the utmost barbarities have been per-

petrated by the police of Sicily on the unfortunate popula-
tion of the country. (Cheers.) The bon gentleman does
not know what is passing there; if he did, I am sure his
generous feelings would revolt against the barbarities
which we hear and know are practised in that country. I

believe that no such case as that of M. Rosa which has

been brought forward has occurred ; the report is entirely
Unfounded. We don't know that there is such a person,
but, putting a hypothetical case—if any man flying front
the fangs of the police were to seek refuge on board a

British ship, there is no man I believe in this country who
would not deem that that officer had misconducted himself

who, under these circumstances, should drive such an in-
dividual back to be the victim of the barbarities I have

described. (Cheers.) These are matters of feeling on which
we must all think alike. It is no departure from our posi-
tion of neutrality in regard to the contest now going on.

- -
No encouragement has been given to those who are sub-
scribing in aid of Garibaldi. The hon, and learned gentle-
man says the speech of my noble friend the other night was
an encouragement, because at the moment he compared
Garibaldi to an historical personage ; but if the hon. gen-
tleman has no other ground than that for asserting that the
Government has given any such encouragement, he is
rather straining facts and assertions in order to prop up the
opinions which he wishes us to receive as sound. (Hear.)
Therefore, as far as this question goes, there is no censure
to be applied to Mr. Elliot. With regard to the feelings of
the Neapolitan Government upon that despatch, I should
think when they read it, all they could have to say to it
would be

" . . Pudet hmc opprobria noble,
"Et did potuisse et non potuisse refelli."
(Hear.) In respect to the other points there is a great die
tinction between the two cases. In the one case there is a
positive statute, plain, intelligible, and simple, to the viola-
tion of which certain penalties are attached—that is the
Foreign Enlistment Act, The other is an infraction of the
law of nations, which may be punished ; but every man
must see that a prosecution in this case would bo much
more uncertain than in the case of offences against the Fo-
reign Enlistment Act. In the one case a warning was
thought necessary to certain people in Ireland who did not
seem to be aware of the state of the law; in the other case
it was stated by a hon. and learned member opposite, that
the discussion in this house would be sufficient warning to
those who were supposed to be engaged in these subscrip-
tions, which were deemed to be contrary to the law of na-
tions. (Hear, hear.)
N
Mr. HENNESSY said the noble lord's description of the
state of Sicily reminded him of a statement which had been
made some years ago by a colleague of his on a similar
matter. In 1857 the Foreign Secretary of the noble lord's
Government stated in another place, that Baron Poeriso
had had an operation performed on him while still wearing
the chains which caused the wenn& for which that opera-
tion was required. That statement was also repeated in
another form by the right holt. gentleman opposite, whose
book about Naples was full of the grossest misconceptions.
The moment that charge was made the Government of
Naples took steps to give it a proper contradiction. A State
paper was published to which were attached the certificates
of the surgeons who performed the operation. They denied
the story about the chains, for the Baron wore no chains—
Mi. GLADSTONE—Oh, oh 1 Why I saw them myself.
(Loud cheers.)
Mr. HENNESSY—Did the right hon. gentleman mean
to say that he saw the chains upon the baron at the time
of the operation, and that it was in consequence of the
chains; because that was what Lord Aberdeen stated in
the House of Lords, and what had been asserted by the
right hon. gentleman ? But they had now the declaration
of the medical officers that they saw no chains, no mark of
a chain, and that the disease for which the operation was
performed was of long standing. Yet it was upon such
statements as these that our Ministers insulted Naples, and
used language which must lead to a rupture 'of diplomatic
relations with that Court. (Great laughter.) With respect
to the religious question he would say nothing, but as to
liberalism either in Italy or anywhere else, be did not ap-
prove of it. (Hear, and laughter.)
Mr. CARDWELL desired to remark that he had not
said any proclamation was issued in Ireland against foreign
enlistment. The warning given was merely an ordinary
police notice.
Mr. P. O'BRIEN could not concur in his hon. col-
leage's defence of the Sicilian Government. He regarded
it as most abominable, and he hoped it would be overthrown
by the nationality of the people, under the guidance of the
Catholic clergy, and not by the exertions of Garibaldi, with
whom he had no sympathy.
DEFENCES OF THE COUNTRY.

Col. DUNNE expressed a hope that the report on the
defences of the country would be laid upon the table before
the house was asked to vote the armx estimates.
The motion for the adjournment to Thursday was then
agreed to.

ANNUITY FRANCHISE.
'Colonel SYKES gave notice that, in commuk,,, on the
Reform Bill, he should move 1-1,. insertion of a clause con-
ferring the elective frtLachise on each Male person of full age
holding a Government deferred annuity of £26 after twelve
months' residence in any county or borough.
OF WILLIAM AND MARTHA
BRIGHTMAN.

Sir JOHN TROLLOPE moved an address for copies of
the correspondence between the Secretary of State for the
Home Department and the Clerk of the Spalding Board of
Guardians, relative to proseeutions, at the last assizes for
the county of Lincoln, against William and Martha Bright-
man, for bigamy. The hon. baronet entered at some
length into the circumstances of the case, complaining
that the board of guardians had been saddled with the cost
of the prosecution, because the learned judge who tried the
parties refused to allow any expenses; and, in passing the
slight sentence of one day's imprisonment, commented se-
verely on the conduct of the prosecutors for bringing such
a case into court. It seemed that William and Martha
Brightman were married about 25 years ago, but they parted
on the day of their marriage, having never cohabited toge-
ther. The man got married to another woman, and having
four children which became chargeable to the parish, it was
then ascertained that the man had been already married to
another woman who was still alive. Mr. Justice Willes
termed the prosecution " a persecutiett," passed a nominal
sentence of one day, and mulcted the board of guardians in
all the costs. Now he (Sir John Trollope) wanted to know
whether these wereproceedings to be sanctioned by the Se-
cretary of State, and ought a judge of the land to use the
language which he had described ? He begged in conch'.
eion to make the motion for the returns in question.
Sir G. C. LEWIS agreed that his hon. friend was justi-

fled in bringing this question before the house. There
could, however, be no question upon the integrity of the
learned judge in this case. The question simply related to
the learned judge's discretion. The matter itself lay in a
very limited compass. The parties were married in 1838,
and a quarrel having ensued, no cohabitation took place,
and it was supposed by the parties that no marriage had
really taken place. This was of course a vulgar error.
In 1842 both parties married again, and the children
of the husband by the second marriage becoming charge-
able on the parish, the board of guardians laid an indict-
ment for bigamy against the husband, when a verdict was
given against him. -The guardians of the poor of the
parish in question felt it their duty to bring a similar
action against the wife, whose
_children by her se-
cond marriage became chargeable on the parish.
To this indictment she pleaded guilty. The judge
passed a lenient sentence, and made some remarks
upon the impolicy of indicting those persons under
the circumstances of the case. No doubt the learned judge
entertained a strong opinion on the case, and expressed him-
self strongly. No doubt it would have been better if he
had abstained from making those remarks. It was not in-
tended he (Sir G. C. Lewis) supposed to censure by a vote
of that house the language of the learned judge in question.
While he (Sir G. C. Lewis) admitted that the learned judge
had been guilty of indiscretion in using the language in
question, still he must observe, that he had no doubt the
learned judge.used them in the perfect belief that the in-
dictment ought not to have been laid against the parties in

question.
Sir J. TROLLOPE said that under the circumstances
he begged to withdraw the motion.
The motion was withdrawn accordingly.

UNIVERSITIES AND COLLEGES ESTATES ACT

(1858) AMENDMENT BILL.
Mr. WALPOLE obtained leave to bring in a bill to ex•
tend the provisions of this act.
GUN AND MORTAR BOATS.

Sir F. SMITH moved for a select committee to inquire
into the circumstances which had caused the alleged de-
fective state of a considerable number of the gun and mor-
tar boats and vessels of the Royal navy.