The Sun.
London, England, 1845-02-28 00:00:00

THE SUN, LONDON, FRIDAY MORNING, FEBRUARY '2Bl 1845.

to Parliament was much more constitutional* than
their present step, and for this reason. The Queen
could, if she were advised to do so by Parliament, take
a course which would really settle this business on a con-
stitutional principle, At the meeting held in Exeter this
learned gentleman said the Queen, through her supre-
macy, had power to alter and settle the rubric. The
learned gentleman told the meeting that this early supre-
macy came from the Pope. The learned gentleman con-
tended, that because the Pope was the supreme head of
the Church during his usurpation of power in this
country, and had the privilege of settling the rubric, the
Queen possessed the same jurisdiction by the statute law.
Now he (the Right Rev. Prelate) would venture to say
that no such jurisdiction was given to Henry VIII. by
Parliament. No spiritual jurisdiction whatever was
given to the Crown, and the power of altering the rubric
was left entirely to the Church. No ancient law what-
ever gave the Crown power to impose upon the Church
any change or alteration in the rubric. But this learned
gentleman said the Queen had the power of doing this
and acting alone in the Privy Council. The learned
gentleman added that the Archbishops and Bishops
were members of this Council, and of course they would
be her Majesty's advisers in this matter. Now, he was
not aware, of this before, but the learned gentleman
said they were called " Right Rev. Prelates," by virtue
of their office of Privy Councillors. He believed that
that gentleman was a man of high respectability. He
was certainly a man of very considerable property, and
he (the Bishop of Exeter) knew that he administered it
with great advantage to the people around him. He be-
lieved also that he fulfilled the duties of Judge over the
Court over which he presided with very great ability.
But perhaps his ignorant* of the subject on which he
bad now entered gave him more time to attend to the
Court of Bankruptcy. He had now done with South-
molton. The next point he bad to take up was the pe-
tition of Dr. Carwithen, which he believed had occa-
sioned great excitement. He (the Bishop of Exeter)
believed that Dr. Carwithen was a very strict observer
of the rubrics. Indeed, he bad an impression that there
was no more strict observer of the rubrics in England
than Dr. Carwithen. He believed that it had been the
practice of Dr. Carwithen to carry out every one
of the rubrics. How, then, could the leToble
Earl say that these practices were utterly obsolete?
He believed his last pastoral letter had taken from Dr.
Carwithen the distinction of observing all the rubrics.
Ile did not mean to say that Dr. Care ithen would feel
this as a grievance ; but it appeared that he was placed
in a state of great excitement by those frightful statutes
of 2d and 3d of Edward VI., and the Ist of Elizabeth.
Now if the Noble Lord would bring in a Bill 0> repeal
those statutes, and thus free the Rev. petitioner from the
tremendous penalties which those statutes imposed, he
would be one of the first to support that Bill.—(Hear,
hear.) Knowing the excitement which had been raised
by a petition presented in another place, he had felt it
his duty, under the fear of falling into any misapprehen-
sion, to consult two very learned friends, whose opinion
their Lordships were accustomed very much to rely on.
They confirmed distinctly the construction he had put
on the Act. That Act did not apply, except there was a
resolute and obstinate refusal to obey the rubric. The
phrase was; that if any obstinate person should refuse,
&c., he would be liable to the penalties. What became,
then, of the anxiety of the Noble Earl for the bishops?
It was very true that there were instances of indictments
being preferred at an early period in the reign of
James 1., when certainly no case of obstinacy was
proved against the defendant, but their Lordships would
bear in mind that at that time the non-observance of the
statute was the exception, and in those times there would
be sufficient reason for a conviction; but he lied been in-
formed by the learned person to whom he had referred
that now an indictment could not possibly be sustained
under similar circumstanees. Dr. Carwithen stated that
the Marriage Act had set aside a portion of the rubric,
inasmuch as it provided that in certain cases banns might
be published in the afternoon. The rubric provided for
this, and therefore Dr. Carwithen was mistaken in his
allegation. The Marriage Act, so far from altering the
rubric, carefully avoided dealing with it. The rubric
recognised the right of the Crown to require any thing
that could be law fully published in the church to be pub
fished, because it directed that nothing should be pub-
lished in the church except by the order of the Crown or
the ordinary. He earnestly entreated their Lordships to
remember what would be the effect of the course they
were now called upon to pursuse. In the year 1643
their Lordships' predecessors formed themselves into a
Committee of religion. Their Lordships' House at that
time consisted of men of great talent; they were warm
supporters of the Church, and when some alterations
were made in the Liturgy, they required that c monon
prayer should be used according to the laws of the land
with respect to common prayer. In three years the
same House that began by inquiry agreed to abolish the
common law with respect to prayer. He trusted their
Lordships would not enter into a question of that sort,
if they found it was not their duty to do so. For his
own part he did not think the House had the power to
do so, but that it lay in the Crown. The principle had
ever been recognised by Parliament that in matters re-
lating to the Church, those who were appointed instruc-
tors by the Divine head of the Church were to propose
the laws which guided them, and that the lay members
of it were to signify their assent or dissent,
as it might be, to what was so proposed.
He did hope that if at any time any proceeding
of that kind should be deemed necessary, it would
emanate from the Crown, and not, as in this case, to
bring by petition the subject before their Lordships'
House. He thought at the present time it was very de-
sirable to adopt that course, in order to let the excite-
ment which had astonished no one more than himself to
die away. If before that time it was thought necessary
to act otherwise, he would venture to predict that the
practices of 1645 would be again but too fearfully ap-
parent.
Lord BROUGHAM deprecated all Parliamentary in-
terference in the controversy which was at present di-
viding the Church ; and he might, perhaps, be allowed
to congratulate the House and the country that there
was no more important matter to divide the Church
than this mere matter of discipline—a question 'nerdy
involving the propriety of whether a sermon should be
delivered in a surplice or a black gown.—(Laughter.)
Many persons conscientiously advocated the use of sur-
plices, and it was not for him, God forbid ! to say that
a matter affecting men's consciences should be in any
way trifled with. Undoubtedly a difference of opinion
did prevail, and it had happened that ci rtain things,
laid down 170 years ago, or more, matters of form which
we re deemed fit and proper to be exacted from clergy-
men, should, since they had fallen into other hands—
(Laughter)—and upon other views, be so changed that
they were no longer a matter of moment; and he (Lord
Brougham) thought, therefore, that it would have been
a matter of common sense to have allowed things to go
on as they were, whether they were trifling or important,
as the revival of them only gave rise to discontent and
anarchy, and scandalous dissensions between the pastors
and the flocks, of all things that which should most care-
fully have been avoided. He (Lord Brougham) ngreed
in the general recommendation issued by the
Right Reverend Prelate to his spiritual children; he
agreed in the humanity, the wisdom, and the cha-
rity of that recommendation, and at the time
when he first saw the pastoral letter he admired the
tone of wisdom, humanity, and charity exhibited in it.
On no account whatever would he wish the subject
brought before Parliament, for he was quite sure that
the very worst thing they could do was to call for Parlia-
mentary interference. He agreed with the Right Rev.
Prelate in some things he had advocated, but he dis-
agreed with him in others. As a son of the Church he
certainly agreed to the rule that the laws of the Church
should be made by her fathers, and he certainly did not
think that that was the place for discussion upon this
subject.
The Bishop of EXETER, in reference to a remark of
the Noble Lord, did not believe that in any one of the
churches in his diocese the rubric had got into univesral
disuse. But in one parish one practice prevailed, and in
another another prevailed ; and his object, in promul-
gating his letter, was to reduce their various practices to
something like regularity.
Earl FORTESCLTE, while giving credit to the Bishop
of Exeter for the zeal and conscientiousness with which
he had performed his duties, could not help wishing that
he had left things as they were; and in that case the
petitions which he had that night presented might have
been spared to the House.
The Bishop of EXETER said the way in which he
was alluded to by the Noble Earl called upon him for an
explanation. Ile requested the House to remark the
animus which pervaded his letter. His sole object in
effecting a change, was to prevent the necessity for
future change.
The Bishop of NORWICH had no wish to interfere
in the discussion on a subject relating to one peculiar
diocese, but he could not avoid sayine that the general
feeling of his own diocese was opposed to the re-
vival of any form that approximated in a dis-
tant degree to the rites of the Roman Catholic Church.
and he rejoiced that this feeling was so universal, and
that therefore those petitions had been presented. It
showed at least that the leity were alive to the subject,
and the temperate and calm, and dispassionate address
which they had presented would he hoped animate the
masses of the people of England. They could never
return -to the rubrical forms, which were imprac-
ticable in the present state of society. The Right Rev.
Prelate said that they were under stringent obligations
to abide by the rubric. He (the Bishop of Norwich)
said they were not so stringently bound, because they
in fast could not be so. He did not see by what right
any Right Rev. Bishop could say " This part of the
rubric I will order in my diocese, and that I will dis-
pense with," and so forth. He felt that that was utterly
impracticable, and therefore he rejoiced that they at-
tempted to remove some of the difficulties which beset
the question.
The Bishop of LONDON was understood to say, that
where the rubric could be enforced it was incumbent en
them to do so.
The petitions were ordered to be printed.
ITALIAN EXILES.
Lord BEAUMONT proceeded to fulfil the notice
which he had given on the previous day, of putting a
question to the Noble Lord the Secretary of State for
Foreign Affairs, relative to an expedition which sailed
last year from Corfu to the coast of Italy. He felt that
considerable importance attached to this question, in-
asmuch as upon the answer he should receive would
depend the truth or falsehood of a charge which
had been made against her Majesty's Govern-
ment of having participated in one of the most violent
acts that had ever been perpetrated by any country.—
(Hear, hear.) In putting this question it would be ne-
cessary syary for him briefly to relate the events which formed
historyrefertoofththoises event.tsrtaagtienicalenti
which In
wereso
be
doing,before
he e
theshould
pub.
lie. The version he should give then would be the version
of the public, as collected from detached wh
ich
had wch
had gone forth to the public. If, therefore, he should
during his statement fall into an error of fact, it, would be
for the Noble Earl to correct him, in theanswer he should
make to the question he was about to put, as well as
to set him right should he make any false coneksiona or

deductions. The history of the case appeared to be
this, as far as he could collect it from the information

now before their Lordships. In the year 1843 informa-
tion was received by this Government that the exiles and
refugees from the States of Italy, who at the time re-
sided in the British possessions in the Mediterranean,
including the lonian Islands, were then plotting or con-
cocting a conspiracy, which had for its object to make a
descent upon the Papal States, and spread the same
spirit through Italy whch bad existed in the year 1834.
He understood, moreover, that a remonstrance was ad-
dressed by the Government of Austria. complaining of
the British Government allowing the lonian Islands to
be made a shelter for those persons who had fled from
Italy. This remonstrance was accompanied by a threat
that if any revolution or commotion took place in the Papal
States, the Austrian Government would send forth an
army to overrun those States. This led to the
exercise of a power in this country which he
would not then stop to inquire if it were wise or not. But
the fact was, the Secretary of State for the Home De-
partment issued a warrant for opening the letters in the
Post-office of a certain individual named Signor

Mazzini, an Italian, residing in this country,
ho was supposed to be corresponding with
those refugees who were at the time in the British pos-
sessions of the Mediterranean. According to this autho-
rity, the letters and correspondence of this gentleman
were opened, and from them it was a,certained that a
conspiracy was forming amor, these refugees, and that
a general descent upon the Papal States was contem-
plated. Austria was put in possession of this informa-
tion ; but it would appear from the report of the Secret
Committee appointed to inquire into the opening of
these letters, that the information was communicated in
such a manner as not to compromise the safety of any
individual in the power of that Government. From
subsequent letters it turned out that,' by the advice of
Signor Mazzini, this plot was abandoned ; and would
that the scene had closed here—would that the curtain
had fallen, and no other act been added. But it was not
so ; and to this part of the subject he invited
the particular attention of their Lordships. The
same emissaries of the Neapolitan Government
were instructed —no doubt upon information re-
ceived from Austria with regard to the disposition of
these refugees who had once contemplated a descent
upon the Papal States, but afterwards abandoned the
idea to proceed to Corfu, where two sons of General
Bandiera had taken refuge. Under the disguise of be-

big fellow-conspirators they induced these -refugees to
favour a new plot against the Neapolitan Government.
He must diverge here for a moment to state that neither
the Papal nor the Austrian consul made any remon-
strance on the subject to Lord Seaton. They took no
notice of this new plot. On the 12th of June, 22 per-
sons, including these emigrant,, sailed from Corfu,
and then, and not till then, did the Papal Consul and
the Neapolitan consul apply for as istance to Lord
Seaton. Lord Seaton, however, declined to follow their
suggestion of sending an armed power to capture this
expedition. On the 13th, the succeeding day, informa-
tion was forwarded to the two Powers, intimating that
the expedition had sailed. On the 16th the expeition
landed on the coast of Calabria; on the 17th they pro-
ceeded onwards to Otranto, and on the following day
they were met by some armed police, just sufficient to
master the expedition. One of them was shot in the
encounter, and the rest were made prisoners. On the
25th nine of them were put to death, and amongst them
were the two sons of Admiral Ilandieri, and seven
others of the misguided men whom Signor Mazzini
had before prevented from putting their design
into execution. Now, if the Government had supplied the
information which led to these sad results, he must say

a more disgraceful proceeding was hardly to be met
with in the annals of this country. lie hoped, there-
fore, the Noble Earl was prepared fir the question he

• •
was about to put, in order that this matter tnight be set
at rest. Now he wished to know if the British Govern-
ment had supplied any foreign Power with information
calculated to compromise the rights of individuals, and
whether they were aware of this information having

been communicated to another Government? And also,
whether the British Government had any knowledge of
tiv: intended expedition from Corfu ; and if they had,
whether they had taken any, and what measures, to
prevf nt it ?
The Earl of ABERDEEN said their Lordships would
proLablv remember that, for the last two years, great
politicjexciternent had prevailed in Italy. Insutrec-
tions had b: en made in the Papal States, which had
created great alarm, and led to the Austrian Govern-
ment determining upon sending an armed force into the
States, in the event of any further outbreak. Ile need
not point out to their Lordships what would be the pro-
bable consequences of such an attack. It was not im-
probable that, if it had been attempted, the peace of
Europe could not have been maintained. Their Lord-
ships were aware that this conspiracy and these projects
were planned, not in the lonian Islands, or in the Bri-
tish possessions of the Mediterranean, but in London.
It was, on that account, thought necessary to detain and
open the letters to Signor Mazzini. He need not remind
their Lordships that the warrant was not issued by him,
or under his direction. Saying this, however, the House
must not understand that he was in the least prepared to

censure the issuing of that warrant. On the eentrary,
he was prepared, as well he believed as every other
Member of her Majesty's Gover ment, to defend and
sustain the full responsibilities of that act. Those letters
when detained were sent from him to the Home. office,

and, acting
,unon his discretion, it appeared to him to he
consistent with his duties to communicate the informa-
tion which they contained to a foreign Power. The
course he adopted was this—he determined that no
agent of a foreign Government should see a single
syllable of these letters ; nor, indeed, did he intend that
any foreign Government should know that any letters
existed. In addition to this, he determined to keep in
view a necessary regard to the personal safety of
all individuals who might be compromised by
any information on the subject. With this de-
termination and with these precautions lie com-
municated, from time to time, such information
as he thought was necessary for the safety of a foreign
State. Acting on this principle, he felt entitled to make
a communication to the Neapolitan Minister. But he did
not state that any letters had been submitted to the in-
spection of the Government. Their Lordships would re-
member that complaints were made last year that the
lodgings of a Polish gentleman had been entered, that
his writing-desk had been broken open, and his papers
taken and delivered to the Rwsian Government. This,
however, was denied at the time ; and in answer to a
question put to him by a Noble Marquis, lie positively
contradicted an assertion that Mr. Mazzini's letters had
been submitted to the inspection of a foreign Govern-
ment. He was happy to say that these precautions
had proved successful, and he believed not a syl-
lable of these letters was made known to the Govern-
ments alluded to. He wool' now approach the immediate
question of the Noble Lord. It had been presumed,
from a passage in the report of the Secret Committee
appointed to inquire into the opening of letters, that in-
formation had been supplied to a foreign Government
which had endangered the personal safety of persons
under its power. But this was incorrect. The fact
stated in the report was the result of an answer made to
him, by a question put by the Committee, as to whether
any person in the power of the Austrian Government
was in danger from the information which had been
given to it? He replied, certainly not. It did not
follow, therefore, that they had given information to one
Power, knowing that it would be transferred to another,
where it would endanger the safety of individuals. Now,
with respect to the question of the Noble Lord, he
begged to say that lie never had any conception of an
attempt being about to be made to recover the Papal
States by the refugees of Corfu. He knew that a certain
number of Italian refugees resided in Corfu, but he had
not the remotest knowledge of their intentions. He was
aware also that one of the sons of General Bandiera had
been at Corfu, because the Austrian Minister complained
to him of his being suffered to remain there. He be-
lieved, if he recollected rightly, that when this person
deserter: from Venice, the newspapers announced that
he had gone to Corfu. He was quite aware of his being
there ; he knew also that another of the sons of General
Bandiera was at Malta, because a captain of an Austrian
ship had made a demand upon the Government to have
him surrendered as a deserter. Sir P. Stewart, in answer
to that application, said he had no power to surrender him,
and in his (Lord Aberdeen's) opinion, very properly so.
But still this was not sufficimt to make him aware
of the practical projects intended by the Bandiera
Their Lordships must recollect that the desertion of
these persons from the Austrian navy had created
great alarm, because it was impossible to say
how far this example might extend, and this
probably would account for the precautions taken
by the Papal and Neapolitan Governments.
The whole of the preparation for the expedition and the
putting it into execution occupied only one week. Had
Lord Seaton received any instructions, he would doubtless
have taken measures to prevent the insurrection. In a
letter which had been received at the Foreign-office, Lori
Seatoh says that the younger Bandiera arrived in Corfu
in February, and not finding his brother there, he left
by the Austrian packet for Malta ; having proceeded to
that island in search of his brother. In this, however,
he was not successful, and not meeting with his brother
there, he went to Greece, and the brothers did not meet
in Corfu till the month of June. Colonel Rieciotti ar-
rived in Corfu on the sth June, in the hope of getting
into Italy by some unknown and unexpected means.
These persons did not arrive in Corfu until the sth of
June, and the expedition took place on the 12th. It was
therefore impossible for him (Lord Aberdeen) to have
received any notice of this expedition. The whole of the
time which elapsed between the planning of the expedi-
tion or, at least between the meetings of the parties who
were to carry it into effect, was one week, so that it was
utterly impossible for him (Lord Aberdeen) to have re-
ceived any notice of this expedition before it was carried
into effect. If any notice had been given to him, unques-
tionably instructions would have been sent to
Lord Seaton to prevent it. When, then, it
was asserted that the Government were acquainted with
this expedition, and refused any measure to prevent it,
he could only say that the Government had no informa-
tion whatever of the intended descent on the coast of
Calabria. The expedition was planned on the sth, and
was put into effect on the 12th. Had there been any
such notice, certainly he should have felt it a duty to
prevent these unfortunate men from undertaking such a
perilous enterprise, and he did think that he should be
able to prove to their Lordships that neither he nor
Lord Seaton had any knowledge ► f its probability, and
that the Austrian and Neapolitan Governments acted no
treacherous part in the course of this transaction. When
it was ascertained by the Austrian and Neapolitan con-
suls at Corfu, on the morning of the 13th of June, that
these men had sailed the evening before, they imme •
diately went to Lord Seaton, and requested him to take
measures to prevent the expedition, and arrest them
before their arrival in Italy. Was that the conduct of
persons wishing to entrap? The existils of Austria,
Naples, and the Pontifical States, waited upon Lord
Seaton at ten o'clock in the morning of the 13t1iJune,
and requested him to take measures for the arresting of
the refugees. His Lordship replied that he could not at

all conceive that such an expedition was likely to be
planned in Corfu, and conceived it to be merely somo
idle report in the town. He, however, desired the di-
rector of police in the island to investigate the matter.
Before however Lord Seaton had received the report of the
director of police, the several consuls of Austria, Na-
ples, and the Pontifical States returned to his Lordship, at
halt-past eleven, and requested him to dispatch the
Medea steamer to bring back the r. fugees. His Lord-
ship replied that the Medea could net be used for that
purpose, for he did not conceive that such a number of
persons could meditate any serious design on the Neapo-
litan Government, but that a boat might be sent to
Otranto with information of the intended descent, and
that that information might be transmitted to Naples by
telegraph. There were bitter complaints against Lord
Seaton, for the sea at the time was calm, and the steamer
might without any difficulty have overtaken these mis-
guided men. For his own part he (Lord Aberdeen)
deeply regretted that Lord Seaton had not complied
with the request which had been made to him, for if he
ho,d dispatched the steamer there was littledoubt but that
it would have brought back the personswho had gone on
this expedition. Now, With respect to the parts which it
was said other Governments had had in this unhappy
transaction, he thou.2ht that there would be no difficulty
in proving that they had had none. At any rate, he felt
assured that this was the case with respect to the Nea-
politan Government. The Bandieras and their party
sailed on the evening of the 12th of June ; they were

three days at sea, and landed, on the 16th, at Otranto.
Was it reasonable to suppose that, if the Neapolitan
Government had had any intimation of the descent, they
would have suffered these men to be three days at sea,and
then have suffered them to land on the coast, without any
interruption from their troops? Net only was this the
case, but that Government had absolutely no troops in
the neighbourhood. and the only opposition the party
who raised the insurrection met with, was from the people
of the country. For three days after landing they ad-
vanced through a thinly peopled country,without opposi-
tion, but on the 19th they were encountered by a party of
persons who had gathered together from the surround-
ing country—a kind of rural police. By these persons,
who acted without any definite plan, they were opposed,
but ineffectively, for over them the Bandieras and their
party obtained the advantage, and killed their leader and
one or two of the rural police. The promoters of the
insurrection then proceeded to Osenza, and the same
night a great number of persons collected and advanced
to attack the party. Mr. Temple, in a letter which
had been received at the Foreign-office, confirms these
facts. He says that the insurrectionists advanced to
Osenza on the 16th, aretwere there met by a consider-
able number of the country people, who were joined by
one of the civic guard and three gendarmes. A conflict
ensued, and the result was that one of the gendarmes
was killed, but the people on behalf of the Go-

. .
vernmen had the advantage. Their efforts were
attended with complete success, and they killed or
took as prisoners the whole number of the expedition,
with the exception of five who fled. The resu't of this
attempt was exceedingly satisfactory to the Government,
because it was put down by the people themselves, with-
out the intervention of any troops ; for the fact was, that
there were no troops nearer to the place where the con-
flict took place than the city of Naples itself. Now it
was a strange mode of proceeding for a Government
who were privy to such an undertaking as this, to have
no troops to put down the insurrection, and he did think
that it was quite clear that the Neapolitan Government
had not any other part in this insurrection than to sup-
press it. lie (Lord Aberdeen) could not say that he
saw any reason to suppose that the Government had any
part in these transactions, from the different sentences
passed upon the prisoners. Of these, nine were shot,
seven were condemned to death, and one was sentenced
to five years' imprisonment. What argument was to be
founded on this result he could not understand, for this
was no light sentence, and was put into rigorous execu-
tion. The person on whom this sentence was passed was
a Corsican, and was in no collusion with the Government
in Naples. That he was suffering a severe punishment
was evident from the fact that, whilst incarcerated, he
had written to Mr. Temple for pecuniary assistance, and
to request that gentleman's interference with the
Neapolitan Government for the remission or alleviation
of his sentence, on the ground of his being a British
subject. The fact was, that it appeared on investiga-
tion that his father and his family had formerly en-
joyed the protection of the British authorities in some
place abroad. Mr. Temple replied that he did not see
how it was his business to interfere with the punishment
of a person engaged in such an enterprise as that
against a State with which the British Government
was at the time holding friendly relations. But though
he (Lord Aberdeen) fully exonerated the Neapolitan
Government from any collusion in this matter, he did
not mean to say that there had been no treachery, for
he believed that there had been, but where the
treachery originated, and how far it extended, he was
not prepared to say. All he could say was, that he
believed the Neapolitan Government to be free from it,
for so strongly was the Neapolitan Minister urged to
remonstrate with the British Government, that his
charge amounted to something more than imputative
eolusion, and in his cemplaint he was strongly inclined
to charge the British Government with negligence at
least. With respect to treachery, it was a most
extraordinary circumstance that one of the conspirators
was not taken with his (Lord Aberdeen's) passport in
his pocket. The principal person connected with this
conspiracy was not either of the Bandieras, who were
young, thoughtless, and enthusiastic men ; but a certain
Colonel Ricciotti, a man whohad been frequently engaged
in affairs of this sort, and was well known on the Conti-
nent. Colonel Ricciotti came to the Foreign-office to
demand a passport ; but, as Noble Lords knew, it was
not the custom of the Foreign-office to grant passports
to foreigners without a recommendation. Colonel lie-
ciotti represented himself to be a native of Gibraltar, a
merchant, who wanted to go to his residence. On being
refused the passport, on the ground of his being a fo-
reigner, he came back recommended by a London tract( s
man. He was again refused, because the re-
commendation was not sufficient ; and he again
applied with his recommendation backed by a
most highly respectable banking-house, and the
passport was granted and he left London. But he was
well known to the French police, and on his arrival at
Marseilles he was arrested. Hew he got out to Malta
he (Lord Aberdeen) had never learn( d. And here he
that when foreigners were re-
could not help observing,
eeived, as they always were received, with kindly hos-
pitality, he thought it was their duty to refrain from any
proceedings might cause any trouble to those
who received h•eceleicelh them. For his own part. whether in
had
his public or in his private capacity, he had always re-
ceived the exiles of other countries with the most cordial
kindness. He had receive d Spanish exiles, Polish
exiles, and Italian exiles, with all the kindness that it
was in his power to show; and he thought that some
thing was due from these persons for !he hospitality
they had received. Of the unfortunate man of whom he
had just spoken he would say nothing; he had met with
an unhappy end, but he (Lord Aberdeen) was glad that
his passport had not been found on his person. He had
proved to the Austrian and Neapolitan Govern-
ments that with these transactions the British
Government had nothing to do ; and he felt
personally, that by
.partaking of them, he was
acquitted by his conscience of the slightest share. In
that last great da) of account, in which they all must
appear, everyone must answer for his actions, and he
knew that all, even the very best of them, would have to
cry for mercy and forbearance. But if the Noble Lord
opposite were to him the nearest and dearest that his
,art could desire. he could wish for nothing better for
him, as he did for himself, than that he might have no-
thing more to answer for than than his (Lord Aber-
deen's) share of these transactions ; for of even the
slightest share he felt by his conscience to be entirely
T
e x euol
rd B
p a t e t lE. —A
u said the version of the Noble( hear, and cheers.)
L
Earl was very different to that wlsich had gone forth to
the public. lie we, fully satisfied with the explanation
which had been given, as it had completely vindicated
the Noble Earl from any participation in the matter.
He (Lord Beaumont)had never suspected that the Noble
Earl had any participation in it. but he thought it was
necessary that an explanation should be given
on the subject. After the vindication of the
Neapolitan Government by the Noble Earl,
he must say that the charge, with respect to them, stood
on so frail a basis that he could no longer give credit to
it. lle would say, however, that he could not agree
with the course of the Noble Earl in entering into a
minute examination of correspondence, in consequence
of a threat by the the Austrian Government. He
thought it would have been better to hove waited until
the Austrian Government had put their threat into
execution.
The subject then dropped.
The Earl of DALHOUSIE laid on the table a Bill for
the appointment of constables in Scotland.
ITheir Lordships then adjourned.

HOUSE OF CO2II TONS, Feo. 27.
The SPEAKER took the Chair at Twelv o'clock, but a House
was not made till a quarter-past Twelve.e
RAILWAY CLAUSES CONSOLIDATION BILL.
On the order of the day for considering the Report of the
Company's Clauses Consolidation Bill,
Mr. HAVES said, that before the House went into Com-
mittee on the Railway Clauses 9nsolidation Bill, he wished
to ask the Noble Lord opposite (Lord Granville Somerset)
what the course was which he meant to pursue with respect
to this Bill. The Noble Lord was aware that he (Mr.
Hawes) entertained a very strong objection to the power
exercised by the Board of Trade in the revision of railway
projects. Now the 47th clause of this Act conferred these
powers to a much greater extent than they had ever before
been exercised. The discussion of that clause would natu-
rally open up an investigation of those powers, and he
should take that opportunity to oppose this plenary jurisdic-
tion of the Board of Trade. his
.object, however, was not to
impede the progress of the Bill in the Committee, and he
therefore wished to ask the Noble Lord in the event of his
(Mr. Hawes) waiving his objections at present, what course
he meant to take with respect to this Bill, and especially
with respect to the powers to which he had alluded, and
which to him and many others appeared so objectionable?
Lord G. SOMERSET concurred in the observations of the
Hon. Member. He admitted that the point to which he
had been calling attention was one of very great importance,
and that it would be well to have it discussed before a full
House. But, considering the great
financial questions that vet remained to be disposed of, and
the deep interest the determination of them was to the trade
of the country, lie would ask would it not be better to get
through the remaining clauses of the Bill with as little delay
as possible, reserving the discussion. upon those points which
were more technical ones, to the time when the Bill should
be reported upon ?
Mr. FOX MAULS differed from the Noble Lord, and
conceived it would be much better to discuss the merit
of each clause as they went on, and dispose of it. The
Noble Lord knew the House of Commons better than he (Mr.
Fox Maule) did, and therefore lie would not remind him that
it would be almost in vain to expect this question to be dis-
cusse by it.
Mrd. AGLIONBY agreed with the Noble Lord. The sug-
gestions were mere technical ones, and could be easily made
when the report was brought up.
Lord. G. SOMERSET begg-d to assure Hon. Members op•
poeite that his Hon. Friend the Vice-President of the Board

of Trade had bestowed great attention on the alterations and
amendments seggcsted ; but they were all of a technical
character, and could therefore be ceaiiy disposed of on the
report being brought up. With regard to the clause affect-
ing officers refusing to make up their accounts, Ms., he (Lord
G. Somerset) proposed that bail might be taken by the
magistrates. With respect to clause 120, on the subject of
dividends, he had found that it admitted of no doubt in its
construction, and therefore need not be altered.
Mr. lIAWES thought there was great objection to it.
The clause provided that the capital stock of a company
should not be disturbed. Now, how were they
to determine what was and was not capital stock?
for unless this term " capital stock" were defined, he thought
that great practical inconvenience would arise. He should
therefore move that the words " by which their capital stock
should be diminished," should be struck out.
Mr. HAYTER said he thought it was not the intention of
the Noble Lord to prevent the payment of dividends by any
company who were realising interest on their paid-up capital.
There was no absolute necessity for interpreting the clause
in this way. If they were to strike out the word " such "
after the word "any," and before the word " dividends " in
the preceding clause, the. difficulty would be obviated. For
instance, if 900,000/. had been paid up for the construction of
a railway, he believed it was not the intention of the Noble
Lord to prevent the Directors of a company from paying the
interest accruing from this capital.
Mr. GISBORNE said that the whole difficulty arose from
the ambiguity in the term "dividends."
Lord GRANVILLE SOMERSET said it was not the object
of the clause to prevent the payment of dividends from the
interest of capital, for that he thought was legitimate; but to
prevent the payment of dividends out of the capital stock
after the works were completed, and when no profits had been
obtained. It was well known that many companies had
gone on paying dividends out of their capital stock, as if they
were in a meat flourishing condition. Ile did not mean to sav
that there might not let some special cases, but there would be
in the several Acts out of which those arose special provi-
sions for them, and he did not think that the words
should be struck out on that account. his object was to
prevent the practice which had been adopted by the com-
panies to whom he had alluded, who went on paying divi-
dends when, in fact, they had realised no profits, until their
capital no longer existed.
Mr. AGLION BY said that be quite understood the Noble
Lord meant the clause to apply to fictitious profits.
But the cases which he had put the other day had not yet
been met. The first was the case of a coal company—whether
they could consider the coal as part of the capital stock of
the company. The other that of a land company, who, sup-
posing they laid out 100,000/. in the purchase of 100,000
acres, and they sold 10,000 of those acres for 20,0001., was
one-half of that sum to be divided as a bonus, or was it to be
considered as part of the capital stock of the company.
Mr. GLADSTONE said, that if any difficulty existed in
the apprehension of the clause, it would be better to obviate
it by the introduction of some other words. But it must be
recollected that this was a general Act, and intended only to
regulate other special Acts to be introduced hereafter. Those
special Acts would provide for their own peculiar exigen-
cies, and he did not think that there was any difficulty in this
clause which might not be readily adjudicated by a legal
tribunal.
Mr. GLADSTONE did not think there was more difficulty
to be encountered in dealing with this clause than any other
involving questions of commercial legislation ; and it should
be recollected that it had the sanction of lonee-continued pre-
cedent for its present shape.
Mr. HAWES—As it had now been admitted on all hands
that this clause required some amendment, he would divide
the House upon it.
Mr. ENTWISLE—The object of the clause appeared to
him to be, not to prevent the company from making divi-
dends, and applying their surplus fund otherwise than it
should be, but to prevent them disposing of that fund to any
other purpose than diminishing their liabilities. - Sometimes
a company purchased an estate through which their line was
to run, and then they sold the remainder of that estate ; and
the object of this clause was to take care that the produce of
that sale should be applied to diminishing the liabilities of
the company.
Mr. Hawes's amendment was then withdrawn.
Mr. AGLIONBY said he had an amendment to propose
which was so crudely and hastily drawn that he was not quite
sure whether it would carry out the object which he had in
view. His object was to enable parties under special circum-
stances to return a portion of their capital, or in other words,
to diminish their capital stock, which the Right Hon. Gen-
tleman (Mr. Gladstone) said was in many cases extremely
desirable. The words which he proposed to add to
the clause were :—" Provided always that the word dividend
shall not be construed to apply to a return of any portion of
the capital stock, except after due notice given for that pur-
pose, at an extraordinary meeting, to be convened for that
object."
Mr. lIAWES was understood to say, that though he did not
entirely approve of the amendment, he should not oppose it.
Lord G. SOMERSET Okought it would be more prudent
to reserve the consideration of the words until the third
reading.
The amendment was then withdrawn.
On the reading of clause 142, which gives the power of
distraint upon the treasurer,
Mr. SPOON ER said it would be a great hardship to give
the creditor of the railway the power of dietraining the goods
of the treasurer for the debt of the company. He would have
no objection that there should be a power to distrain for the
amount of the balance iu the hands of the treasurer belonging
to the company.
Lord G. SOMERSET admitted that there was a seeming
hardship to allow distraint upon the treasurer of an insolvent
or bankrupt company. But the treasurer could at any time
relieve himself by resigning his office, when the creditors
would know what balance really existed. At present the
creditors were frequently evaded by the treasurer's denying
the possession of a balance.
Mr. AGLIONBY said that the clause would go in
direct opposition to the policy of all the Acts which
had been passed of late years, which policy was to
give creditors a full remedy against the company; and, at
the same time, to protect the officers. The Act, the 7th Vic-
toria, was passed to enable companies to wind up their affairs,
or to enable the creditors to compel them to wind up, so that
there was no reason for the introduction of so stringent a
clause as the present. He approved, therefore, of the amend-
ment proposed by the Hon. Member for Birmingham. •
Mr. HAYTER and Mr. PLUmrTRE supported the amend-
ment.
Mr. II AWES said that the treasurer ought not to be made
responsible fur the whole of the debts of the company,
whereas he knew nothing of their assets beyond the book
account. The effect of the clause as it stood would be to
deter from accepting the office of treasurer the class of per-
sons whom it was most desirable to have placed in that
office.
Lord G. SOMERSET said he would take time to consider
the clause before the third reading. For the present he
would withdraw it.
Mr. GLADSTONE said, the clause had been introduced
into all joint- stock companies' Bills for sonic years past.
Mr. AGLIONBY—More shame for it.—(Great laughter.)
Colonel SIBTHORP could not see why persons with pro-
perty, connected with these. companies, such as the treasurer,
should not be liable as well others, if from no other reason,
for that merely of keeping them out of bad company.—
(Laughter.) In fact, he looked upon all these companies as
delusive, or very little better than humbugs.—(Laughter.)
The remaining clauses were then gone through, and the
Bill was ordered to be engrossed, and read a third time on
Monday.

RMiMAY COMPANIES CONSOLIDATION BILL.
The House then went into Committee on this Bill.
Clauses 12 and 13 having been read,
Colonel SIBTHORP said he wished to call attention to the
powers conferred by those clauses, and particularly to
those in clause 14. He did not mean to say that
anything that fell from so humble an individual as
himself should be deemed worthy of being reported
in the public papers—(A laugh)—but it was his wish that
what he had to say upon this subject should go forth to the
public —(Hear; hear.) He begged to be understood as pro-
testing against these clauses altogether, but to some of them in
particular, such as clause 14. He always understood that in
residing in England he lived in a free land, where any man's
property, be it small or large, was preserved to him,
and his right to it recognised and respected ; and
particularly the property of the poor man—(Cries
of " Hear, hear")—for the invioliability of whose right he
was more anxious than those of the rich, or than even of his
own ; therefore, he should get credit for not having any
selfish motive in his opposition to the clause, fir his
object was the public good. He admitted that
the Board of Trade were an intelligent and even, he believed,
a disinterested body ; but of what value would it be to a
poor man, to have the power of appealing to them,
when he had not the means of doing so ? and be-
sides, he looked upon the Board of Trade as in-
competent to decide such questions. The 14th, 15th, 16th,
and on to the 20th clauses gave a company a power of devi-
ating 100 yards either to the north, south, east, or west,
as they thought proper. Why, he would say, that
this deviation would have the effect of render-
ing the property of many poor men totally valueless, and of
completely annihilating that of others.—(Hear.) Many poor
men had been driven from their habitations in disgust by
those encroachments rather than resort to this appeal. And
then, as to compensation, don't talk to him of such a thing.
(Laughter.) There might be circumstances under which no
compensation could be sufficient. He had in his possession pro-
perty that could not be taken from him, and that no
amount of compensation could make amends to him for the
deprivation of it by this sort of encroachment. But he would
ask why should not the rights of the smallest cottager
be as much respected as his ? (Hear, hear.)
By whom was this power of cutting down a poor man's pro-
perty to be- exercised ? Why, by Aorß or C, who had no
consideration whatever for him ; and therefore he would pro-
test against such a power being given them. Talk of the
despotism of the Emperor of Russia on the Dey of Algiers.—
( Laughter.) Why, they were respectable men in compari-
son.—(Laughter.) If this power of deviation was to be given,
where might not the company deviate to ?—(Hear.)
An HON. MEMBER—They may deviate a thousand yards.
Colonel SIBTHORP--Aye, or why might they not deviate
ten thousand? Oh, but then it had been said that
the Company would purchase the land; but then the
treasurer might not have a balance in his hands sufficient
to pay ; and he (Colonel Sibthorp) would tell that gentle-
man to take care how he trusted people.—(Loud laughter.)
When the purchase-money was demanded, it might be said,
" No assets—go to law."—(Laughter.) If this system be per-
mitted, then he would say England was no longer a free
land, and her sun indeed had set.—(Hear.) In fact, no man
in the country would be fool enough to buy property
in the country so circumstanced. He felt assured that the
Noble Lord near him would be the last man in the
world to-do any man an injury; he was sitting here only in
the capacity of a public officer, and therefore no blame
attached to him. He (Colonel Sibthorp) knew how useless
it was for him to expect that he would have any weight in
this House; but he would divide the House upon this ques-
tion, in order to record his vete upon it.
Lord G. SOMERSET said the encroachments could not be
made without the sanction of the proprietors and holders of
the land. This, he thought, would remove the objection of
the Gallant Gentleman behind him.
Mr. AGLIONBY protested that there was great objection
to the clause, and he only regretted that it had not been
fully considered before it was introduced into
former Bills. The present system of encroachment
male by railway companies was most disgraceful. From
the nature of the plans lodged by competing companies it
was quite impossible for a farmer to recognise his land,
even if he had an opportunity of inspecting
them.—(llear, hear.) He knew this from experience;
and not unfrequently the plans were purposely prepared
to mislead the owners of land over which it was intended
the line should pass. It was the duty of Parliament, there-
fore, to tie companies down by such stringent rules as
would effectually prevent the continuance of this disgraceful
system.
Lord G. SOMERSET said he thought the Hon. Member
need not have put the protection of the small proprietors so
strongly upon him. No man had been more careful of these
proprietors than himself. But he conceived that the observa-
tions of the Hon. Member applied, not to the deviation, but
to the main line. lie might say that privats proprietors
should be protected, because when a proprietor gave his con-
sent to a railway, and parted with a hundred yards breadth
of his land, he was in fact assenting to the use of three hun-
dred yards. The clause was in fact restricting rather than
enlarging the powers of railway companies to take the land.
Mr. AGLIONBY begged to assure the Noble Lord that he

never intended to impute to hiin or to any other member of 1
time Government, or, indeed, of that House, the slightest
neglect of public interests. Nothing was more contrary to

his feeling.
Mr. HAYTER was not astonished at the Hon. and Gal-
lant Officer's attack, for he believed that he would attack any
and every railroad in every country and of every time. He
(Mr. Havter) conceived that this objection to the power to
make a deviation was quite unnecessary, and likely to be
mischievous. He believed that if any great engineer were
called before them he would assure them that it was abso-
lutely required.
Mr. GLADSTONE said, that he must confess that he felt
much sympathy' with those who objected to this clause,
though he could not see on what ground they based their
objection. The fact was, the clause, instead of extend-
ing the powers of deviation, contracted them. The
clause proposed three limitations ; in the first place,
that they should not deviate from the lines marked
down in the plans ; in the second, that the deviation
should be according to the specifications, and in the third that
the deviation should not be extended into the lands of persons
whose names were not in the book. At any rate he was fear.
ful that if the clause were to be altered more mischief would
be occasioned than by adhering to it, and he was not prepared
to take such a leap in the dark as was proposed by those who
opposed the clause. lie could not consent to the alteration
without having sonic engineering evidence to show them that
these deviations were unnecessary.
Sir GEORGE SINCLAIR said that he considered the
power to ii ake these deviations essential, and to the extent spe-
titled in the clause, for in his county he knew that very great
inconvenience had arisen to several parties from the obligation
to abide by the black line on the plan. He felt, therefore,
that it would be better to abide by the provisions of the clause
as they then stood.
Colonel SIBTHORP said he felt bound to treat the obser-
vations of the Hon. Member for Well - (Mr. Hayter). un-
founded as they were, in the many-. Ant they deserved. It
would be well for that Hon. Gentleman if he had shown
throughout his Parliamentary conduct that disinterested-
ness which he hoped that he ever had evinced, and ever
should evince ; and in spite of the unfounded observations
which might fall from any Hon. Member within the walls of
that House, he should not be deterred from prosecuting his
humble opinions when he considered it his duty so to do,
without any selfish motive or feeling whatever. He
(Colonel Sibthorp) had no share in railroads. He
would not condescend to ask the Honourable Member
for Wells whether he had or had not—he did not
care whether he had or not. He would simply say, once for
all, that he threw back his imputations with the contempt
which they deserved.
Mr. HAY TER said he thought the expression used by the
Hon. and Gallant Member was not one which, on reflection,
he would be disposed to maintain, because it was wholly' un-
deserved. As, however, he would be sorry to be out-
done by him in courtesy, he would at once say
that if he had used any language which the Hon. and
Gallant Member considered to be personally offensive, he
was quite willing to retract it.
Colonel SIBTHORP said he had not the slightest objection
to accept the explanation which had been offered.
Mr. AGLIONBY adhered to his opinion that the deviation
of one hundred yards was too much.
Lord G. SOMERSET said that it was not to be expected
that a general Act could provide for all particular cases
and objections. The parties concerned in each measure
ought to see that their interests were secured by a special
enactment.
The clause was then agreed to.
On the reading of the 15th clause,
Mr. AGLIONBY was about to state objections to the
clause, when
Lord G. SOMERSET said, that as it was likely that the
clause would be much discussed, he should propose that the
Committee be adjourned for the present, that the Chairman
report progress, and ask leave to sit again on Tuesday, at
12 o'clock.
The House then resumed, the Chairman reported progress,
atil the order of the day having been read for the Committee
on the
COMPANIES CLAUSES CONSOLIDATION (SCOT-
LAND) BILL,
The SPEAKER again left the chair.
The LORD ADVOCATE stated briefly to the Committee
that be had, during the progress of the English Bill, assimi-
lated the enactments of this Bill, as nnich as he thought the
circumstances would admit, to the clauses, as amended, in
that (the English) Bill.
The Bill then went through Committee ; and the House
adiourned at ten minutes to Four until Five o'clock.

The SPEAKER took the Chair at Five o'clock.
A mtsserger from the Court of Bankruptcy brought
up the usual returns.
Mr. Stanstield, Mr. Duncan, and other Members
presented petitions relating to private Bills, of which the
designations were not heard in the gallery.
Mr. BARNARD presented a petition from the parish
of Greenwich, against the Fisher-lane Improvement Bill.