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

fetter freedom of action. It looked very much like a triumph
given to the protestant feeling of this country at the expense
of the catholie feeling of Ireland. Numbers of volunteers
from other Catholic nations went to join General Lamori-

ciere, and not only money but guns were given to the Pope
by noblemen and gentlemen in France, and there was no pro-
clamation to forbid such subscriptions. But her Majesty's
Government wished success to the conspirators in Italy, and
were determined to crush the expression of Irish zeal. This
repression was an instance of tyranny in its most odious
_ _

form. The noble lord the Foreign Secretary the other day
sneered at the notion that Catholics should resent an attack

on the Pope's legitimate sovereignty; but Mr. Pitt, in a
debate in that house, during the war with Napoleon, alluded
very differently to the outrages and insults inflicted on Pius
VII., that venerable Pontiff, saying that "such conduct

seems even to me, a Protestant, hardly short of the guilt
of sacrilege. What would be the effect of this proclamation
on Ireland ? It would cause every person who was leaving
the country to have his movements watched, and magis-
trates who wished to be promoted would send reports to
Dublin Castle, and there would be a renewal of the old state

trials. It was said it was contrary to the law to enlist per-
sons for the service of the Pope. Well, suppose it was ;
but why was not the law with regard to subscriptions to aid

an insurrection in a country with the Government of which
we were in amity put in force also ? Suppose it had been
determined to stop these subscriptions, and that the enlist-
ment in the service of the Pope had been allowed to proceed,
her Majesty's Government would not have been allowed
long to occupy the Treasury benches. He thought Govern-
ment were bound either to enforce the law in this country
or to withdraw the proclamation in Ireland.

Mr. CARD WELL said he was very sorry that the hon,
member should suppose that the conduct of the Irish Go-

vernment had been extraordinary. Whether extraordinary
or not, it had been simply that of obedience to the law. The
hon. member supposed that they had issued a proclamation,
and he said that proclamation was tyrannical and oppressive.
Now, in the first place, they had issued no proclamation at
all, and in the next place their conduct had been anything
but tyrannicil and oppressive. There was a law of this
United Kingdom which rendered it penal for any subject of
her Majesty, without her Majesty's permission, to take
service under a foreign sovereign, and it was the duty of
the Government both in England and Ireland to carry
that statute into effect. They did not desire to see persons
brought into the meshes of the law through ignorance of
its provisions, nor did they desire a state of things to con-
tinue under which persons who when they knew what the
law was might be willing and ready to obey it, should breakit
through not haNing information. What they did was this,
they directed a notice containing the terms of the statute
in clear and unmistakeable language to be printed and circu-
lated. He submitted that it was their plain duty, so long
as Parliament kept that statute on the statute book, to en-
force it, and that it was not only not tyrannical and oppres-
sive but consistent with propriety to inform the people of
Ireland what the law was. Then the hon. gentleman said
the Government had pursued an entirely different course in
England from what they had pursued in Ireland, and that
there had not been equality of justice between the two parts
of the United Kingdom (Hear, hear.) The hon. gentle..
man could not say that there had been any tendency to in-
fringe this statute in England. If there had been he had
not the slightest doubt that the Secretary of State for the
Home Department would have issued in England the same
notice that had been issued in Ireland. But the hon. gentle-
man said they had been parties to the encouraging illegal
subscriptions for the purpose of supporting an insurrection
in° Sicily. Now, he entirely denied that they had been
guilty of anything of the sort. If the hon. gentleman was
aware of any evidence that they had done so, it was his duty
to adduce it. He was not about to renew the discussion
that took place the other night with regard to the difficulty
of obtaining convictions of conspiracy. His object was
simply to show that the Irish government, having desired
to give effect to the law, had thought it equitable and right
to couple that with a notice calling the attention of those
who might otherwise have exposed themselves to punish-
ment to the provisions of that statute. The Government
had instituted no prosecution in Ireland or in England, for
the same reason in both countries, that they had no evidence
that would. justify any such proceeding with regard to any
infringement of the law. The hon. gentleman said the
issue of this notice would lead to mischievous consequences
in Ireland, Now, he had shown, with regard to the past,
that the hon. gentleman was mistaken aito the conduct of
the Irish Government, and he ventures to say, with regard
to the future, that he would be equally mistaken. The
notice was legal, and it was fair to give the people informa-
tion of the law, to which they were bound to conform.
Mr. BOWYER said he rose to call the attention of her
Majesty's Government and the house to a most extraordi-
nary despatch from her Majesty's representative at Naples
which had been laid before the house. He referred to the
correspondence rear ecting the reception of political refugees
on board her Majesty's ships of war, and the passage to
which ho wished to call attention was to be found in a de-
spatch from Mr. Elliot to Lord John Russell dated the 23d
March, 1860, and which sounded more like an extract from
a speech in a Jacobite club than from a despatch from a
Minister of State. Mr. Eliot said, "In the present excited
state of Italy an announcement that political refugees would
ftnd an asylum on board her Majesty's ships would pos-
sibly be sufficient to produce an outrage, but on the other
hand it must be recollected that when this Government and
its agents are prosecuting individuals in defiance both of
law and justice—(hear)—they may be fairly considered as
somewhat in the same position as those who escape from
the Lynch law of a mob." (Hear.) Now, he was not
going to say one word of the merits or demerits of the N ea-
politan Government, and he should abstain from doing so
because he was addressing the British House of Commons,
and not a Neapolitan Parliament. We had no business
with the internal government of the, country, or of any
foreign country, but he did say that if a Minister who was
accredited to any Government spoke in a public despatch
in terms of gross insult towards the sovereign of that coun-
try, that was an outrage against the usage and the law of
nations, and against the proper decencies of civilised life.
He wanted to know whether such a despatch as this would
have been written by a Minister accredited to the Court
of France ? These insults were only offered to the minor
States of Europe. :No insolence was considered too bad
for them if it accorded with the prejudices of this
country. He did not believe that the Secretary for
Foreign Affairs really entertained those sentiments
towards foreign Governments in his own secret
heart, but the noble lord truckled to the feeling
of this country against the Catholics. He wanted to know
if it was possible that a minister who had used such lan-
guage as this could continue at the court to which he was
accredited? There was no doubt that according to the law
of nations Garibaldi had been guilty of an act of piracy,
and those who formed committees in London for the pur-
pose of assisting him were guilty of a conspiracy to commit
piracy. He (Mr. Bowyer) hoped that an opportunity would
be afforded before the close of the session for discussing the
foreign policy of the Government, and it would then appear
that in that policy there would be no impartiality, and a
very curious sort of neutrality.
Lord PALMERSTON—I am afraid I cannot satisfy the
wish of the hon. and learned gentleman by informing him
that her Majesty's Government have expressed any disap-
proval of the despatch which has met with his censure,
(Hear, hear.) The chief characteristic of that despatch is
that it states the truth—(cheers)—and I apprehend that it
is the duty of her Majesty's diplomatic agents abroad to
state the truth, however disagreeable to the Government
whom they address, with regard to the facts upon which
they have to communicate. (Hear, hear.) This was not
a volunteered communication from Mr. Elliot. It arose
from a discussion which took place here as to the supposed
conduct of a naval officer in giving refuge to a Sicilian flee-
ing from persecution on shore. The orders which have been
given on those matters are recorded on the other page of
the paper from which the hon. gentleman read an extract,
and he will find that the orders, given by my direction when
at the head of the Foreign-office, and under which all naval
officers are acting in places where these circumstances are
likely to occur, are simply these—that when any one flees
from justice, to escape from a trial or from the condemnation
of a tribunal, to any ship of war which may be stationed in
a foreign port, he is not to be received; but that if an indi-
vidual flees from persecution on account of political opi-
nions, or political conduct, and gains access to the ship,
then the commanding officer is not to refuse him asylum,
It is upon the principle that every British ship
of war is British territory (cheers) ; and that principle has
been acted upon in other places and with regard to other
countries besides icily. During the civil wars of Spain,
Gibraltar was the place of refuge alternately of all the dif-
ferent parties. Carlists :at one time, Progresistas at an-
other, fleeing from the power of their adversaries, trium-
phant for a moment, have equally found refuge under the
sanction of the British flag at that place. (Hen., hear.)
On the same principle it would be an act of barbarous
cruelty on the part of the commander of a ship to turn
adrift and force back into the hands of his pursuers a man
who had committed no distinct offence, who had been tried
by no tribunal, who had been charged and found guilty of
no civil or criminal offence, but who was persecuted simply
on account of his political opinions, and sought a tempo-
rary refuge on board ship. (Hear, hear.) Mi. Elliot states
when ho last wrote that the condition of Sicily at the time
was such that I ersons flying for refuge from the police in
this way, were like persons flying from the Lynch law of a
mob. [Mr. Hennessy.—They were flying from the go-
vernment.] Yes, but the Government of Sicily is the police.
(Cheers.) That is the gravamen of the charge. The hon,
and learned gentleman says Mr. Elliot showed disrespect to
the laws and institutions of the country, but I say he showed
respect to. them. The laws and institutions of the Neapolitan
kingdom are now entirely set,aside, and consigned te obli-
vion—the whole government of the country is in the hands
of the police. (Hear, hear.) In the kingdom of Naples
there is an excellent code (" hear, hear," from:Mr. Bowyer)
—the Code Napoleon [Mr. Bowyer.—" No, it is not so"],
adapted to local circumstances and to the usages of the peo-
ple. There is a Constitution and a Parliament, granted by
the late King, sworn to by him in the most solemn manner
(hear, hear); with adjurations of vengeance on himself
and his successors if ever it were set aside—but yet that
Constitution is a dead letter. (Cheers.) The police do
everything—they arrest- people without any charge against
there, they 'keep them in prison without any trial, and if
by any accident any prisoner is brought to trial and
acquitted he is equally kept in prison, because it is said he