Sir, I rise to make the Motion of which I have given notice, that the House at its rising adjourn to Monday next. If the House should agree to that Motion, I shall also move that the Committees have leave to sit, notwithstanding the adjournment of the House. Perhaps it may be convenient to the House at the same time to say that we mean to propose that the House shall adjourn on Friday in next week for the Whitsuntide holidays until Thursday in the week following. I think, also, it will be convenient that on Monday next I should move that the present arrangement with regard to Fridays and Thursdays should continue until the end of the present Session.

said, he was desirous of taking that opportunity to put a question to the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, of which he had not the opportunity of giving notice, but which was one of considerable interest. That House had passed a Bill repealing the Excise duty upon paper, and a question had arisen as to the probable fate of that Bill in "another place." Her Majesty's Government bail entered into treaty arrangements with the Government of the Emperor of the French with reference to certain Customs duties, and amongst those duties was included the Customs duty upon paper. The interest of the question which he wished to put would be evident when he read its terms. He wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman—in case the other House of Parliament insists upon maintaining the Excise Duty upon Paper, what will be the position of the question of the Import Duty on Foreign Paper, of which it is intended to propose the repeal?

said, be wished to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer the question of which he had given notice—Whether the Horse Duty will be allowed to the Yeomanry this year?

I believe it is customary with most men, when they have to deal with two points, to begin with the easier. I will therefore answer the bon. Member for Maldon (Mr. Peacocke) by informing him that, although the Yeomanry are not to be called out this year, according to the intention of the Government, the regular directions have been given for allowing them the exemption from the duty on Yeomanry horses, which is, I think, in accordance with obvious justice. With respect to the question of the hon. Member for Halifax (Mr. Stansfeld), as it refers to a matter, which, of course, was under the consideration of the Government at the time the Treaty of Commerce with France was being negotiated, and as I learnt a few hours ago that the question was to be put, I sent for a copy of the Treaty with France, and I have no difficulty in giving an answer to the hon. Member, which embodies the opinion of the Government upon the effect of that article. I, of course, take no notice of those portions of the hon. Gentleman's questions, which appear to anticipate that I the Bill for the repeal of the duty will probably be lost in "another place;" since that is an occurrence which it is not for me to anticipate. The Seventh Article of the Treaty commences thus:—

"Her Britannic Majesty promises to recommend to Parliament to admit into the United Kingdom merchandise imported from France, at a rate of duty equal to the Excise duty, which is or shall be imposed upon articles of the same description in the United Kingdom. At the same time, the duties chargeable on the importation of such merchandise, may be augmented by such a sum as shall be an equivalent for the expenses which the system of Excise may entail upon the British producer."

Sir, I do not understand the hon. Member to ask me what might be, or might not be, the obligations of England, according to the opinion of Her Majesty's Government, in the event of the repeal of the Excise duty upon paper; and, therefore, that matter I leave for the present altogether aside. But, the hon. Gentleman asks me the opinion of the Government upon the obligations of England, under the Treaty with France, and under the terms of the Address, by which each House of Parliament has bound itself to give effect to the Treaty, in case the Excise duty on paper should not be repealed. Well, Sir, I apprehend that is a question, upon which no person who has examined the Article I have quoted, can possibly entertain a moment's doubt. At any rate, Her Majesty's Government consider it to be a matter beyond all doubt, and beyond all argument or necessity for construction or interpretation; inasmuch as the words appear to be as plain as possible and directly applicable to the case. If there be a duty of Excise on paper, then, subject to a single condition, it is the obvious duty of England towards France, and of the Houses of Parliament, under the terms of their Address, to reduce the Customs' duty on foreign paper to the precise level of the Excise duty on paper made at home. The single condition, to which I refer is, that contained in the latter portion of the clause, which specifies that the duty chargeable on the import of such merchandise may be augmented by such a sum as shall be an equivalent for the expense which the system of Excise may entail upon the British producer. And that principle has been applied, in the course of the present Session, in conformity with the general spirit and express terms of the Treaty, to the case of spirits, where the regulations of the Excise are so restrictive in various particulars, that they entail disadvantages upon the producer, that are capable of being stated in money. And a compensation for these disadvantages, in the shape of what the French call a surtaxe, has been added to the import duty chargeable on foreign spirits. But, with respect to the duty on paper, whatever may be its effect in restricting trade—which is not now a matter of discussion—no one has ever alleged that it imposes disadvantages on the manufacture of paper of such a definite nature, or such an amount as to be capable of being stated in the form of a certain rate of money. No claim of such a character has ever been made, or could be made. The inconveniencies, whatever they are, to the actual manufacturer of the article which we call paper, are not so appreciable or palpable, as to be capable of being reduced to such a form. There will, therefore, be no case for a surtaxe like that imposed in the case of spirits, and, therefore, I presume that in such a contingency as that to which the hon. Gentleman has adverted—and which again I decline to accept or to suppose possible—my hon. Friend the Member for Herts (Mr. Puller) will withdraw, or cease to persevere, with the Motion of which he has given notice.

said, he rose pursuant to notice to call the attention of the House to the Statement by the Solicitor General with reference to an advertisement in The Times newspaper for raising money to assist the insurgents in Sicily, and to call attention to a decision of the Court of Common Pleas as to the illegality of such a proceeding. He was induced to bring the question before the House in consequence of the reply given by the hon. and learned Solicitor General on the previous Friday night to a question put to him by an hon. Gentleman who was a supporter of the Government (Mr. Grant Duff). His (Mr. Hennessy's) opinion as to the state of the law might be of little weight, but the opinion of the hon. and learned Gentleman had attracted great attention, not only from his official position in that House, but also because he held a distinguished position as a lawyer. It would, perhaps, be convenient if he recalled the attention of the House to the circumstances under which the question was put. The attention of the hon. and learned Gentleman was called in this House to an advertisement which had appeared in The Times, relative to the collection of funds to promote the insurrection in Sicily. The hon. Member (Mr. Grant Duff) who introduced the subject frankly owned he wished success to the revolt, and hoped that, spreading into the main land, it would before long overwhelm the King and Government in titter, destruction. The hon. and learned Gentleman, in replying, said:—

"The question was, whether the subscribing of money by any of Her Majesty's subjects in this country or paying it into the hands of a foreigner living here with the purpose and object described, came within the rule of common law, or was an offence against any prohibitory statute. Now, it appeared to him that, as long as what was done was limited within the bounds of a mere subscription in this country, such as this advertisement prescribed, no law of this country would be violated. The Foreign Enlistment Act prohibited the enlistment of soldiers and equipping of vessels. It did not in any way touch subscriptions. Any man who thought proper might put his hand into his pocket take out his money and put it into the hands of another on the faith of its going to Genoa to be disposed of by General Garibaldi, without violating any law whatever."

Now, the purpose and object for which the money was collected, were set forth clearly enough in the advertisement, which was published in English and Italian, the English version being as follows:—

"Subscription Fund in Aid of the Sicilians.—The committee appointed at the meeting of Italians, held at St. Martin's Hall on the 4th of May, announce that in conformity with the resolutions passed at that meeting, a subscription has been opened in aid of the Sicilians, and they earnestly invite all Italians resident within the United Kingdom, and all other persons who may be inclined to sympathize in the cause of Italy, to forward, as early as possible, their contributions to assist the Sicilians in their struggle for freedom. The subscriptions, when collected, will be transmitted to a central committee in Genoa, presided over by General Garibaldi."

The hon. and learned Gentleman might also have ascertained the purpose and object of the fund to which subscriptions were invited from the resolutions passed at the meeting referred to in the advertisement, from the pages of the public press, or from the speech of the hon. Member who asked the question. It was perfectly evident that the object of the subscribers was simply to assist in promoting an insurrection against a Sovereign in amity with our own. General Garibaldi, to whom the subscriptions were to be paid, and who commanded the force which had landed in Sicily, had received a good deal of sympathy in this country. Sympathy had also been extended to two Italians who accompanied him. One of these was the notorious Ricciardi, a letter of whose had been published in The Times describing the proceedings of the expedition. In a proclamation addressed to the Italians, Ricciardi had used the following language:—

"Independence requires revolution and war. All considerations as to progress of knowledge, civilization, industry, riches, and public property must be put aside."

He spoke of Christianity thus:—

"The fatal plant born in Judea—that error which has taken root among men—has only reached its high point of growth because it was invigorated with waves of blood. But a new era will soon begin for men, the glorious era of a redemption, very different from that of Christ."

The despotic tendency of Italian liberalism he thus indicated:—

"We do not want a popular assembly, fluctuating, uncertain, and slow to deliberate; we want a hand of iron to rule a people hitherto accustomed to differences of opinion, and enervated by slavery."

Such were the words of the compatriot of Garibaldi. [Cries of" Date!"] The proclamation of Ricciardi, from which he had quoted, was issued in 1848. [A laugh.] The other companion of Garibaldi was the equally well-known Zambianchi, of whom some account would be found in a work with which a right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Gladstone) was well acquainted—Fariui's State Romano. in that work it was recorded that in 1849 Zambianchi had gathered together all the priests in San Carlisto, and there slaughtered them. He was well-known in Italy by the title of the "Priest Slaughterer," and was a prominent member of the society known as the "League of Blood." He wished also to direct their attention to the antecedents of Garibaldi himself. A correspondence took place last summer between two noble Lords as to General Garibaldi. In communicating with one of them on this subject he (Mr. Hennessy) called his attention to the character of the secret society of which Garibaldi, as a member, had taken the oaths, and his letter was published in some of the continental papers. It attracted the attention of a distinguished diplomatist employed by Her Majesty, who wrote to him to say he was very much struck by the rules of that society, as they completely confirmed the impression he had previously formed, and to ask permission to make use of his letter as an authority in "another place." Of course that permission was given at once. He would read to the House some of the rules of the society in question:—

"Members who will not obey the orders of the secret society, or who unveil the mysteries, shall be poniarded without remission." "Each secret tribunal is competent not only to judge guilty adepts, but to put to death all persons whom it shall devote to death." "If the victim succeed in escaping he shall be pursued incessantly in every place, and the guilty shall be struck, were he sheltered on the bosom of his mother, or in the tabernacle of Christ."

Few persons were aware of the extent to which these secret societies prevailed in Italy, or the nature of the oaths which they imposed on members. The rules he had quoted would give the House some idea of their character. He would proceed however to call the attention of the House to the opinion given by the hon. and learned Gentleman on the subject of the subscriptions. His statement had attracted much attention on the Continent. In The Times of the 15th inst. appeared a letter from a correspondent at Turin, who wrote thus:—

"The late debate in the English Parliament respecting subscriptions opened in England for the avowed purpose of aiding Garibaldi's expedition, will go far, I have no doubt, towards reassuring the King's Ministers here, who thought themselves gravely compromised by the indulgence extended to some of the Sicilian sympathizers, who collected money for Garibaldi here. The position of Sardinia, however, differs in some degree from that of the British Empire, and the Italian proverb says 'the same offence brings one man to the throne, and another to the scaffold.'"

Almost every paper in France, in Italy, and generally throughout Europe had published the opinion on this question given by one of the chief law advisers of the Crown. He would like to ask the hon. and learned Gentlemen himself whether he had not received intimations from subjects of the Queen in this country calling attention to the fact that they had been solicited to subscribe in aid of the Italian insurgents, and requesting him to institute a prosecution against those who thus violated the law. When he ventured the other evening to question the soundness of the opinion given by the hon. and learned Gentleman, he was only able to cite from memory a certain common law case in which an important decision had been given. This was a question, however, which depended, not merely on the common law of England, but also on international law. And he maintained that both by the common law of England and by international law, as understood in every State in Europe, and in every century of civilization, such a proceeding as that which one of the law advisers of the Crown had declared to be legal, was distinctly condemned as a violation of the law. He would first address himself to the common law of this country. They were fortunately in possession of a decision on the subject by the Court of Common Pleas—a very thoughtful and deliberate decision, given by one of the most eminent Judges who evers at upon the bench. In the year 1824 a case came on for trial before Chief Justice Best, in which the question arose; whether a certain engagement to raise money was valid or not. The Chief Justice laid down the law that the engagement being to raise money to promote insurrection against a Government in amity with our own was null and void, and subsequently, on a Motion for a new trial in the full Court, and giving the unanimous judgment of the Court, he said:—

"It occurred to me at the trial that it was contrary to the law of nations, which in all cases of international law is adopted into the municipal code of every civilized country, for persons in England to enter into engagements to raise money to support the subjects of a Government in amity with our own in hostilities against their Government; and on further consideration I think that my opinion at the trial was right, and on that ground that we ought not to grant a new trial."

The force of this decision would be understood by every hon. Member of the House. It at once declared that the act set forth and described in the advertisement in The Times was illegal according to the common law of England. He might, perhaps, be allowed to say a word upon the general question of international law and policy. He should quote the opinion of a learned Gentleman, once a Member of the House, whose authority would be admitted. Mr. Phillimore, in his Commentaries on International Law, said:—

"A State is prima facie responsible for whatever is done within its jurisdiction. A body politic is responsible for the acts of individuals which are acts of actual or meditated hostility towards a nation with which the Government of these subjects professes to maintain relations of friendship or neutrality."

He had a higher authority, however, than Mr. Phillimore—that of a gentleman who, he trusted, would take part in this debate—the present learned Attorney General himself. On February 19, 1858, on the second reading of the Conspiracy Bill, the hon. and learned Gentleman laid down the general principle:—

"It is undoubtedly a principle of our law that whatever tends to interrupt the amity of the Sovereign with a foreign Power in alliance with our Sovereign is an offence, to use the language of some of the older statutes of our country, against the amity of the Crown."—[3 Hansard, cxlviii. p. 1824.]

Another Member of Her Majesty's Government gave his opinion upon the subject in 1851. Dealing with a question closely resembling the present, the then Home Secretary, Sir George Grey, said—

"I shall not be contradicted by any legal authority in this House when I say that foreigners adopting any measure with the view of levying war against any foreign country with which this country is at amity are guilty of an offence at common law, and are punishable on conviction by fine and imprisonment."

At the time of the Conspiracy Bill, as well as he remembered, a distinction was drawn between foreigners and subjects of the Queen. It was alleged by the noble Lord at the head of the Government that the subjects of the Queen could be punished for certain offences, but that foreigners residing here could not be punished for those offences. The question which they were now considering was, whether an act in which both subjects and foreigners residing here had taken part was illegal, and therefore the authorities which he had read were much stronger than on the occasion to which he had referred. There remained a still higher authority—he believed he might say the highest living authority in this country—Lord Lyndhurst. It was a remarkable fact that a circumstance very similar to this occurred in the year 1851, and Lord Lyndhurst, in calling attention to the advertisement of the Central National Italian Committee for obtaining funds to raise insurrection in Italy, said—

"Now, it is quite obvious, my Lords, that this is a breach of the implied engagement which those persons entered into when they came to this country to seek the protection of our laws, and I am sure your Lordships will join with me in reprehending such conduct in the strongest possible terms. My Lords, I am not so weak as to suppose for one moment that much money will be raised in this country by a body of this description. People are much more ready to throw up their caps and shout in favour of liberty, equality, and fraternity, than to lay down their money for such objects."—[3 Hansard, cxv. 623.]

Fortunately, at that time Lord Lyndhurst's question was not addressed to a Member of Her Majesty's Government, whose sympathies with the Italian cause made him for the moment forget the common law of England, and Lord Grey, who replied to Lord Lyndhurst, used these remarkable words:—

"Her Majesty's Government disapprove of any such proceedings as strongly as the noble and learned Lord himself, and to the full extent of the authority invested in them by the constitution and the law they would discourage and discountenance all such proceedings."

The effect of that debate in the House of Lords was that proceedings censed, the advertisement was withdrawn, and the Central Italian Committee to promote insurrection was not heard of again until within the last few months. He might content himself with making this statement; but he felt that the present question was really connected with some others which had lately engaged the attention of the House. He felt that it was above all connected with certain despatches which the noble Lord the Foreign Secretary had thought fit to address to the Court of Naples; that it was very intimately connected with the attitude of the Emperor of the French, and the territorial changes which were taking place or impending in Europe; and, with the utmost respect, he would ask the House, on whose opinion the public opinion of Europe had so often relied, carefully to consider before they endorsed the insurrectionary spirit which he was sorry to say pervaded a certain portion of the English public, and before they encouraged the filibustering expedition of Garibaldi. Some time ago it was made a reproach to our friends across the Atlantic that they encouraged filibustering expeditions, and the American Government was called upon by more than one of the European Governments to explain their conduct. They repudiated those expeditions; but now, for the first time, one of the oldest established Governments of Europe—an old monarchy—actually came forward to sanction, almost to enforce, a filibustering expedition. There was a time when the foreign policy of England was not associated with revolutionists. There was a time when it was directed to maintain legitimate order, to uphold dynasties, and to promote the cause of civilization in Europe, and not to promote, as it now seemed, not only the cause of revolution and anarchy, but, as he thought he had indicated, the cause of assassination and outrage. He begged to apologize to the House, and particularly to the Solicitor General, for having presumed to call his attention to a point of law, and he assured them that in doing so no one knew better than he did himself how very poor his opinion must be.

Probably before this discussion proceeds further, it may be thought desirable that I should now state to the House, what was the real purport of the answer which I gave to the question put to me on Friday night last. I thought, at the time, that it was desirable I should be very careful and precise, and I endeavoured to be so. I prescribed strict limits to myself, but I see by the Report, with which I find no fault, that, especially if my answer be read disconnected from the question, what I said may tend to mislead. With the permission of the House, therefore, I will, as on that occasion, refer to the important words of the question. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Grant Duff) gave notice of his intention to ask me, whether my attention had been called to an advertisement, which appeared in the The Times of Wednesday, the 9th of May, announcing that a subscription had been opened in London in aid of the Sicilians; and whether persons, in this country, who contributed to the fund which it was proposed to raise, would render themselves liable to any legal proceedings. I intended to give a precise answer to that question. I understood—as I think every one would understand, and as I presume the hon. Gentleman who put the question intended by the words with winch it concluded—by "legal proceedings," proceedings in a criminal court, by way of indictment. I considered the question I was answering to be simply whether a poison who should read this advertisement, and in his own mind approve the result to which it points, and acting singly and individually, pay money into the hands of any one of the recipients named—aye or no, is he liable to be indicted at common law for a misdemeanour. My opinion was, and is, that he is not. I am not prepared to say that upon a matter like this, which is not of frequent occurrence, that is an opinion in which, without being limited and guarded, every lawyer in this House will concur; but I take upon myself the answer which I then gave, in the sense and with the intention I have explained. I will state, in a few words, the reasons for my view; but I must previously express a hope that the hon. Member (Mr. Hennessy) will excuse me if I decline to follow him into some of the topics to which he has thought fit to advert. It is not for me to defend Garibaldi, or any person who may be engaged with him, in any part of Italy, in any act of insurrection. All I have to deal with is the dry point of law, and the propriety of the answer which I gave the other night. I repeat that my real intention in giving that answer was to express my opinion that an individual who by himself, of his own free will, paid a subscription of this sort, would not, by the mere simple fact of his subscribing, render himself liable to an indictment at common law. The question is whether that would be an indictable act. I am not prepared to question the doctrine—though the point is a very different one from that which the hon. Gentleman has brought before the House—that persons engaged in a conspiracy to foment, or excite, insurrection in the States of a friendly Power, would be liable to prosecution. The hon. Gentleman has stated that noble Lords and persons of high authority have laid it down that such a conspiracy may be dealt with criminally as a misdemeanour, and the persons engaging in it visited with fine and imprisonment. So far from taking exception to that doctrine, I will quote a passage from a speech of Lord Lyndhurst on this point. The noble and learned Lord said, on the 4th of March, 1853:—

"If a number of British subjects were to combine and conspire together to excite revolt among the inhabitants of a friendly State—of a State united in alliance with us—and these persons, in pursuance of that conspiracy, were to issue manifestoes and proclamations for the purpose of carrying that object into effect; above all, if they were to subscribe money for the purpose of purchasing arms to give effect to that intended enterprise, I conceive, and I state with confidence, that such persons would be guilty of a misdemeanour, and liable to suffer punishment by the laws of this country, inasmuch as their conduct would tend to embroil the two countries together, to lead to remonstrances by the one with the other, and ultimately, it might be, to war."—[3 Hansard, cxxiv., 1047.]

I find no fault with that proposition, but every lawyer is aware of the extreme difficulty of bringing the provisions of the criminal law to bear on such a case; indeed, we had not long ago a proof, in the case of Dr. Bernard, of the extreme difficulty of applying the common law—assuming it to be the law—against persons conspiring in this country to forward some act that was to take place in a foreign country. In justice to myself, I must repeat that I expressed an opinion, the other night, only on the particular case which was put to me. No person has asked me what would be the condition of persons forming themselves into a Committee, for the purpose of exciting or supporting an insurrection in a foreign friendly State. I gave no opinion as to what might be the position of persons causing the insertion of these advertisements in the newspapers, or of the pub- lishers of the newspapers themselves; much less did I take upon myself to express any opinion as to what might be the consequences, penal or otherwise, of a conspiracy such as was referred to in the debate in the Lords. With this limitation, I still hold, and I repeat the opinion which I expressed the other night. The Foreign Enlistment Act does not touch the case of subscriptions; but there is the strongest evidence, in that Act of the insufficiency of the common law of this country to deal with offences of this description. The preamble of the Act runs thus:—

"Whereas the enlistment or engagement of His Majesty's subjects to serve in war in foreign service without His Majesty's licence, and the fitting out and equipping and arming of vessels without His Majesty's licence for warlike operations on or against the dominions of any foreign Prince, State, &c., or against the ships, goods, or merchandise of any foreign Prince, &c., as aforesaid, may endanger the peace and welfare of the kingdom; and whereas the laws in force are not sufficiently effectual for preventing the same—"

It does not give a penal character to offences in violation of its enactments beyond the terms of the common law; it makes the offences, which arise from such a violation, misdemeanour, and misdemeanour only; and therefore there is in it the strongest evidence of the insufficiency, in a general way, of the common law doctrine of misdemeanour to reach these cases. My attention has been called by the hon. Gentleman to a case decided in the Court of Common Pleas, and from some general observations made in that case—more in the way of dicta than decisions on any particular point—he has inferred that the act of subscription would, according to the authority of the Court of Common Pleas, amount to an indictable offence. Upon that point I am entirely at issue with the hon. Gentleman. I do not deny that, in the ease of a foreign loan attempted to be raised hero, for the purpose of fomenting an insurrection in a foreign country in amity with us, the Court of Common Pleas, in an action on the contract, has held that the contract could not be enforced, being tainted with the character of illegality. But every lawyer knows that illegality is one thing, and criminality another. Every lawyer knows that contracts are perpetually brought before the Courts, either to have their performance enforced, or to recover damages for a breach of them, with regard to which the Courts decide that fulfilment cannot be compelled, nor damages recovered, and yet no one would say that the persons engaging in them were liable to an indictment. The law holds a variety of contracts to be void, such, for instance, as contracts for the price of obscene and immoral books or prints, contracts prejudicial to the public revenue, against the policy of the bankruptcy and insolvency laws, contracts affecting the course of public justice, and others; in all these cases there is an illegality in one sense, and such an illegality as to prevent the Courts of law enforcing the contract, but there is not in them what I will call criminality. If a person, who had received subscriptions for the purpose of an undertaking of this kind, were to turn round and say, "I shall not apply them to the purposes indicated. I shall give them, instead, to this, that, or the other Prince or potentate," and the subscribers were to bring their actions, the Courts might say that, though there was no criminality in the contract, it was so far tainted with illegality, so much against the policy and spirit of the law, that damages for a breach of it could not be enforced. When the matter is really understood, it will be found, I apprehend, that there is no great difference between the authorities cited by the hon. Gentleman and myself; and, with the limitation of the doctrine of conspiracy to which I have adverted, I adhere to the opinion which I gave the other night.

If, Sir, the answer given to the House the other night by the hon. and learned Gentleman, has, by means of the electric telegraph, created some confusion abroad, I think I can undertake to say that the speech which he has just made, if transmitted in the same way, will not be productive of much alarm, as I rather think it will not be understood. In the words of the old couplet,—

"He darkens by elucidation,

And mystifies by explanation."

I am 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. When he sat down I was more in the dark even than when he got up to understand what are his views upon this grave question of international law. 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 dis- cuss—of collecting and conveying subscriptions to those persons who are now in insurrection against their Sovereign, the King of Naples in Sicily. That is a fact which it is beyond the hon. and learned Gentleman's powers of explanation to mystify. 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 requisition of that advertisement, for the purposes therein stated. 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 compassing his destruction; 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 subscriptions 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. To do justice to the Solicitor General—not that I understand it—the distinction which he drew was this: If an individual pays his money, it may be misapplied; but, as it would be opposed to the principles of morality, to sanction a legal investigation as to whether the money was applied in disposing of the Sovereign for whose destruction, according to the terms of the advertisement, it was specifically to be applied, therefore, he says, an individual may lawfully subscribe. I doubt it. The hon. and learned Gentleman 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 object, which persons forming themselves into a public body, had undertaken to accomplish. I say they can not.

The question is, whether they would be liable to any legal proceeding.

It is true the question is put in that form; but the hon. and 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. I cannot understand the distinction taken by the hon. Gentleman, when he puts the case of a person who is supposed to subscribe to a fund set on foot by a number, and at the same time to isolate himself from a conspiracy; or the case of a fund to which contributions are made by foreigners resident in this country. Nobody ever heard of a distinction drawn in such cases between foreigners residing here, and natives of this kingdom; all alike are subject to the laws of England. And if it be unlawful for a body of British subjects to form a committee to collect subscriptions, and to dethrone the Emperor of the French, it would be equally repugnant to international and positive law—by which I mean the common law of this country—for them to meet together and subscribe for the purpose of overthrowing any other Sovereign. The law of nations does not depend on the nature of any Government; it is immaterial to us whether the State be a Republic, or whether the Government be absolute or Parliamentary, as long as we are living at peace with it; and, for my part, I hope we shall live at peace with all Governments. States are bound to behave towards each other with scrupulous impartiality, and with the strictest good faith. And I know nothing more mischievous—though the occurrence was, I believe, accidental, and the hon. and learned Gentleman admits that his answer may have been misunderstood—than that any Member of the Government, even for the sake of a little temporary popularity, should have the appearance of connecting himself with such a prominent person as Garibaldi, and in the face of Europe to sanction proceedings, which international law disapproves. The hon. and learned Gentleman, when he refers to an opinion of Lord Lyndhurst, shows that he approves of it; and, I must say, that it is an opinion exactly applicable to the question before the House. The noble Lord there speaks of a committee formed for an illegal object; here are members of a public body presuming to assemble themselves together, and by means of advertisements inviting persons to subscribe, it being directly stipulated that the amount raised shall be sent to Garibaldi, to aid in overthrowing the Government of the King of the Two Sicilies. It has been spread all over Europe that, in the opinion of the Law Officers of the Crown, there is no illegality in such a proceeding. I venture, with all humility, to say that if such an opinion were inadvertently given, it is a mistake. No contributions to be collected through a body, of which, by his subscription, the person makes himself one—and therefore responsible for their acts—can be legal, or in accordance with constitutional law, when it is openly avowed that these contributions are sought for the purpose of overturning the Government of any Sovereign with whom we live on terms of amity and peace.

Sir, 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 instance 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 discussing. Dr. Bernard was not indicted for conspiracy at common law, but for an offence under a particular statute, and he was acquitted by a jury. Inasmuch as I was an advocate in that case, I shall refrain from stating any grounds of the acquittal but those which are publicly known. It was felt on that occasion that a statute had been perverted for the purpose of endeavouring, by the indictment of an individual, to relieve the Government from a political difficulty; and the jury were perfectly justified in the view which they took, because the Government were challenged to bring forward their legal arguments, and, those legal arguments being postponed, the defendant was acquitted on the facts of the case. Dr. Bernard was indicted, not for conspiracy at common law, as the hon. and learned Gentleman has told the House, but under a statute which every lawyer in Westminster Hall know was framed and passed to meet an entirely different offence from that with which the prisoner was charged. And therefore, when the Solicitor General states the difficulty of convicting persons of conspiracy, his observation must be taken to apply to the evidence; and if this is a conspiracy—and I, as a lawyer, have no doubt that it is—the hon. and learned Gentleman, I think, will find grounds for reconsidering the hasty and immature opinion which he has given on this subject. What clearer evidence to insure conviction can you have of the overt acts of a conspiracy than the payment of money by one individual, and its receipt by another? If a committee advertise for subscriptions, they ate surely sup- posed to be human beings congregated for the purposes of that subscription; 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 got up in this House and say what stronger evidence of overt acts can be afforded. 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 importance that this matter should be thoroughly understood on the Continent; and I feel that we are indebted to the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the King's County for having brought it forward. The hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor General has truly said that this is not as an offence against the Foreign Enlistment Act. It certainly is not. It has no more to do with it than with the Habeas Corpus Act; but there is a question to which the Foreign Enlistment Act does apply, and I ask the hon. and learned Member for the Kings's County to bring that forward on another occasion. 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 Lamoriciere. 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 subjects, comes equally within the provisions of the Foreign Enlistment Act.

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, and those principles I freely agree to be these:—You have no right whatever to interfere in the domestic affairs of another nation. That, unquestionably, is the rule of the common law, and the foundation of all legislation on the subject. If you wanted to exemplify this in your own history, the lecture which you read to the French king on the occasion of the revolt of your North American colonies would supply you with abundance both of principles and of reasoning. I quite agree, therefore, that, according to the common law of England, any subjects of the Queen who, either directly or indirectly, may supply money in aid of the revolt of subjects of any nation or Power with whom we are in alliance, commit an offence at common law. But, as I before had occasion to state, there is a very great difference and a long interval between the enunciation of that principle and the manner in which it is to be carried into execution. In proceedings of a criminal nature, or which are otherwise founded on any rule of common law, your only guide can he precedent and authority; and those hon. Members who speak most confidently on this branch of law would, I think, be quite unable to point out any case or decision in the books in which there has been any instance of a successful application of the general principle, in the shape of an indictment for this particular offence. That, however, is not exactly the point to which the attention of the House can be advantageously directed, although it was the precise point to which the remarks of my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor General were directed by the very narrow and limited question which was put to him. When the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Whiteside) indulged himself in that ridicule in which he is so successful, both of the answer which was given, and of the explanation which has been afforded, I could heartily wish that the accuracy of the right hon. and learned Gentleman and his knowledge of the subject had been equal to his powers of speech. I certainly should advise him never again to indulge himself in his usual vein of ridicule until he has thoroughly ascertained the facts of the case on which he is speaking. Now, the question put to my hon. and learned Friend was simply this—Had the persons subscribing to this fund rendered themselves liable to legal proceedings? Could any one imagine that by "legal proceedings" it was meant could a civil action be brought against them? Could the legal proceedings mean anything but a criminal prosecution? The hon. and learned Member for Marylebone says the Members of the Committee are conspirators; and that any persons 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 mention some instances that would have justified this conclusion. I was very anxious to find one when the Conspiracy Bill was under consideration, but I did not succeed, although I found enunciations of the general principle in abundance. I cannot therefore think that 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. At the same time, I should have been very glad if my hon. and learned Friend had accompanied his remarks with the general statement—as he would no doubt have done if his attention had been directed to it—that all these things are contrary to the policy of the law, the object of which is, above all, that the peace of the Crown should be preserved. The law, therefore, prohibits anything that may endanger the peace between the Sovereign of England and the Sovereign of another State. That great principle of the law must be accepted by every person; and the common law of England, although it may have provided no particular remedy, yet in conformity with general good faith and expediency, lays down in the strongest manner the principle that all subjects of the realm are bound to abstain from every interference that tends to excite the subjects of another country against its lawful authorities. What those authorities may be is not the question. It matters not that they may be cruel, or tyrannical; that is not the question. If the sovereign be in amity with this country, it would be wrong and illegal for any persons hero to interfere with the affairs of his kingdom. An hon. Gentleman has said that the committee formed for the collection of those subscriptions is open to an indictment for conspiracy. I must, however, observe, that according to the papers, almost the whole of that committee is constituted of foreigners. Now, I do not mean to say that the principle of the law does not extend its prohibition to all persons who are permanently resident within this kingdom, and who owe allegiance to, as they receive protection from, the Crown; but I do not believe that that principle has ever been established upon authority, and I therefore warn the House against receiving with confidence the statement that there has been (as the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite seemed to say) a positive enunciation of the law to that extent. I confine myself solely to the question of the common law, which lays down the principle I have stated in the strongest possible form, and it is therefore the duty of the Government to take care that that law is not violated by any of the subjects of the realm.

I think if the answer of the Solicitor General had been at the time accompanied by all the explanations, the comments, and, I may add, the solemn lecture just delivered by the Attorney General, that answer would have done very little harm; and, probably, there would have been no necessity to trouble the House again with a discussion on the subject. I entirely concur with one part of the speech of the hon. and learned Solicitor General that the importance of the question cannot tie overrated. But there are two grounds which render accuracy in dealing with this question especially necessary. The first is the effect of inaccuracy on our relations with foreign Powers, which cannot fail to be seriously disturbed if a rash and inaccurate answer is spread abroad as having been given by the Government in this House. The other reason that renders accuracy of great consequence is this,—the law officers of the Crown know perfectly well that their answer will be read by foreigners in this country; and persons who are amenable to the law of the Queen, are likely to regulate their conduct by this statement of that law as given officially in this House. It would be much to be lamented, if, after an opinion had been given on the part of the Crown in the House of Commons, criminal proceedings should be taken against any persons for misdemeanour, and the persons indicted should be able to say they trusted to the opinion given by the legal advisers of the Crown as the true exposition of the law; and that when they acted in the manner complained of they thought they had competent authority for what they did. 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 united action is taken to effect an illegal purpose, by any number of persons, that amounts to a conspiracy, and 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 docs not require much legal acumen to appreciate. Suppose subscriptions were advertised for in London with the object of raising a not in Yorkshire, would any person say that a person subscribing to that fund, for the promotion of that purpose would not be guilty of conspiring to effect it? I cannot conceive what act of conspiracy can be more overt or more definite than handing money to a common fund when it is known that the fund is to be applied in a particular way. But the Attorney General says there is a further difficulty that must be attended to. He says, "True, the funds are advertised for in this country, but the persons advertising, though residing here, are foreigners." It is the first time I ever heard, when it is a question of the application of the common law, that foreigners residing within the Queen's dominions, do not owe perfect and complete allegiance to the Crown, and are not liable to punishment for every offence for which penalties are inflicted by that law. Certainly questions might arise, under particular statutes, whether the words are large enough to include foreigners, or whether they are limited to British subjects. That must depend on the words of the particular enactments. But to say that the common law does not extend to every man, woman, and child within the jurisdiction of the Queen is a proposition that I never expected to hear from an Attorney General of England. [The ATTORNEY GENERAL: I did not say that.] I am glad that the simple application of the argument has drawn a negative from the hon. and learned Gentleman. That application, however, I submit is fatal to the distinction which he attempted to draw. It is quite patent that whether the parties are foreigners resident in this country, or natural-born British subjects they are equally liable to an indictment for a conspiracy for contributing to such a fund as that described in the advertisement alluded to.

The importance of this question cannot be overrated. By the interpretation of the law on this subject, the interests of England and Europe may be affected. If what is being done in the present instance is legal, might also be done in the case a neighbouring country, where the interests of England would be more nearly concerned. If this subscription is illegal by the law of nations, being made openly without any attempt to repress it, the King of Naples might immediately, and without a declaration 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 might be treated as virtually at war with Naples. I do not say this without authority; I have high authority for the statement—one respected throughout Europe. There are passages in Vattel, which will distinctly show the peril to which we are at this moment exposed in consequence of the Government not having disapproved and endeavoured to stop the subscription. The law of nations is part of the common law of this country. And it is the recognized law of Europe that whatever tends to the destruction of peace, is a violation of the law of nations. How, let me ask, would the case stand between two countries which happened to be at war, and a third which desired to be neutral? Why, it is evident that that third State must exercise an absolute neutrality in order to effect her object, and must not assist either party with subscriptions; and if that be so, how much stronger is the case when the subjects of a nation revolt against the constituted authorities? It is, I may add, illegal, even if no Foreign Enlistment Act were in existence, to allow the recruiting of soldiers here in favour of one country against another with which we happen to be on terms of amity, or in favour of subjects who have revolted against their own established Government. Vattel lays down the doctrine that it is a violation of the law of nations to invite subjects to revolt against their lawful Sovereign, although they may have substantial grounds to complain of his rule. That opinion distinctly applies to the present case, and is borne out by Chancellor Kent and other eminent authorities. The Court of Common Pleas, moreover, decided that it was illegal to subscribe or enter into contracts for the purpose of affording assistance to subjects who rebelled against their Sovereign; and it matters not, let me remind the House, whether that assistance be rendered by means of troops, or vessels, or money. Let me suppose, that we had, in the present instance, to deal, not with a movement against the King of Naples, but with reference to the Emperor of the French, and that we were to invite subscriptions against him in support of his subjects who had revolted against his authority. What course would it, under those circumstances, be open to him to take? Why, he would have a perfect right to call us to account for the course which we allowed to be pursued, and to enter into hostilities against us without even making a declaration of war. Assistance rendered by France to America led to a war between England and the former country, just as our proceedings now may lead to a war with Naples. We are, indeed, told by the Attorney General that the principle of those proceedings is opposed to the policy of the common law; but the hon. and learned Gentleman, I think, somewhat astonished the House by intimating that there was no legal remedy against those who took part in them. It is contended that you must in those instances proceed as for a conspiracy; but I should like to know what evidence of conspiracy there is in the case of an individual who libels a foreign Sovereign, for being guilty of doing that for which Peltier was tried and convicted, on the ground that the act tended to embroil the subjects of the King of Great Britain with a foreign State. It is then, I maintain, an offence of the most serious description for any individual—even though he may do it without concert with others—openly to invite subscriptions—it matters not whether they be or be not collected—for the purpose of aiding the revolt of the subjects of a foreign country against their Sovereign. Such a proceeding is a direct violation of international law, and ought to be held liable to punishment. ["Oh, oh!"] Hon. Gentlemen may dissent from that view; it may not be thought necessary to enforce the law; but it is, I submit to the House, a most important question whether we have, or have not, lone acts which place us in a condition leading to actual war with the King of Naples. I may also remark that if it goes forth that the acts of which we are speaking are illegal, but that the law of England cannot touch the offenders, the consequence may not improbably be that we shall have persons coming over to this country from abroad and openly soliciting subscriptions for this purpose. I maintain, therefore, that the subject is one of considerable importance, and that the commission of acts by which the peace of the Queen and her subjects is likely to be disturbed, and by which this country may be involved in war, is in itself a serious misdemeanour.

(Comptroller of the Household) appeared at the Bar of the House, with a reply from Her Majesty to an Address from the House, on the subject of Pensions for Wounds:—

said, he rose to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty, If he has any objection to discontinue the breaking up of the defective Gunboats until a full opportunity shall have been afforded for thoroughly examining into their state under the direction of a Select Committee, should it be appointed? A Motion of his own in reference to these gunboats had been postponed until the following Tuesday; and if it were true, as had been stated, that such boats were in the course of being broken up, then his Motion would fall to the ground. The breaking them up would get rid of one great menus of forwarding a prosecution should such a step be deemed necessary, and he was, therefore, very desirous that the Government should give orders to suspend any attempt to break up any of these vessels or to repair or alter those which were not in so bad a slate, in order that a Committee might have the means of ascertaining where the fault lay, and to what extent the injury had gone. The other evening the noble Lord the Secretary to the Admiralty was asked to name the contractors by whom the boats were built—a question which he, with his usual good taste and judgment, declined to answer. But since then the respectable firm of the Messrs. Green had come forward and publicly stated in the newspapers that they were the constructors of a largo number of the boats stated to be imperfect; and they admitted the use of unseasoned timber, and, to a certain extent, that of short bolts. If their statement was as correct as he hoped it was, with respect to the extent to which short bolts had been used, the mischief was not so great as had been imagined. 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 largo 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 answerable that every bolt was properly driven. It is admitted 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 quite sufficient to secure the safety of any vessel of war. Lloyd's require one through bolt and one short bolt in every butt, and not less than half of the trenails to be driven through, in building their highest class ships, calculated to carry heavy cargoes; and, should the ship be copper-fastened, they require only one half of the bolts to be through bolts, and all the rest short holts. We complain of the Admiralty for not giving the contractors longer time to build these vessels, and for not having a larger staff of inspectors to superintend the work, and also for not taking proper care of them after they were duly delivered up into the charge of their authorities, according 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. He hoped the noble Lord would be able to give him the assurance that the destruction of these boats would be immediately stopped.

said, he had hitherto forborne to offer his opinion upon this subject, for he lad hoped that the matter would take some tangible form, and the question have been put on a footing which would be productive of some advantage to the country. These vessels were defective in every possible form; and as they formed a species of defence which had become of the very greatest importance to this country, he thought that if his hon. Friend persevered in his Motion for a Committee of Inquiry into their state, he ought also to add that that Committee should inquire into the whole question us to how that arm of the public service could be best supplied. He would not on that occasion enter into the personal question. It was necessary, during the Russian war, to construct a force of gunboats speedily, and, as the means of providing seasoned timber was wanting, the Government was compelled to take what they could get, and they built certain vessels of a new description, which, to some extent, answered their purpose. Having said this he had said all he could in their favour; and he would add that he thought that the much more sagacious course would have been for the Government, at the end of the war, to have dispensed with these vessels altogether, and to have directed that vessels of a more suitable character should be constructed. There were one hundred and fifty 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 the existing gunboats could neither steam nor sail. They could not carry their guns in heavy weather, and they were incapable of moving from one point of the coast to the other, when they were required. If he supported this assertion, he thought it clear that one great object of the Committee should be to inquire and ascertain what a gunboat really ought to be. A friend of his, a short time ago, fitted out a gunboat for a distant colony, and the gentleman to whom he alluded being an officer of great intelligence, he (Sir J. Elphinstone) asked him to let him know what were the performances of his vessel. The communication he received was the following:—

"I can sum up the good qualities in one short sentence—she is an excellent seaboat and stays well; beyond this, I cannot add a word in her praise; and her defects would fill a sheet of foolscap. She will neither sail nor steam, and draws eight feet six; maximum speed about five-and-half—we once obtained seven and eight, with a gale on the quarter. She cannot steam under any circumstances for more than twenty-four hours without stopping to 'sweep tubes,' and with any head breeze or sea her rate may be represented by the minus quantity. She cannot generate steam sufficient to maintain a regular speed of five knots even for more than six hours at a time. She leaks like a sieve. So badly were the boards under the stoke-hole plates fitted that the ashes readily found their way into the bilges, choked the pumps, and continually, on our passage out, obliged us to stop, when under steam, to take them to pieces. The suction pipes of these pumps were so miraculously placed as to be totally unserviceable except the ship was on an exactly even line. These two defects have been remedied at Rio, at an expense of £37, which might have been done in a home yard for £5. Sic transit argentum Angliœ. Moral—which fully accounts for the income tax. The magazine has generally from one to two inches of water in it, and the bilges, notwithstanding the most careful attention, stink to such a Thames-like degree as fairly to drive me a wanderer and a fugitive from my cabin, the paint in which was turned in a few hours from white to a slimy looking chocolate. On the passage out I was obliged to sling and sleep under the mizen boom in fine weather; and in foul I used to draw my waterproof around me and doze for the night in a chair. As for my cabin, I never went near it—could not—except to dress in a morning or bolt my meals. Everything I had in it has been completely spoiled, stock and clothes. One-half the ship's company only can sling their hammocks, the other spend the night in crawling on to bins and rolling off again."

This was an account of a gunboat on service, making her way to the point where she was to defend the honour of the country. He would give the House another instance. He was on board one of Her Majesty's ships at Spithead last week, and when he left the ship the wind was blowing fresh from the cast. To come on shore he availed himself of one of these gunboats, and they arrived in safety opposite South Sea Castle. The tide was running to the eastward at about four knots, and, as had said, the wind was blowing half a gale from the east. With a handy vessel, without steam at all, the wind would have carried her over the tide. But this vessel, with all the steam she could muster, could not stem the tide, and after all kinds of efforts she got on the top of one of the buoys and could not get clear of it. At last, after sticking for twenty-five minutes in one place, with all the ladies and gentlemen looking at them from the Esplanade, they were obliged to land in small boats. He went down to the beach an hour or two afterwards, and the gunboat was still in the same place, and there was no difference, except that they had let go her anchor because she could not stem the tide. He inquired whether the boat was inferior to the rest of her class, and the answer he got was that this particular vessel was one of Her Majesty's advanced steam reserve, the Beaver, and that she was understood to be so efficient that she was used for the purpose of taking the officers backwards and forwards. He would appeal to his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Devonport (Sir Michael Seymour), if he were present, to say whether, in transporting these gunboats from Hong Kong to the Nore last year, he was not obliged to take the guns out of them. One of these gunboats, thus not having a gun on board, but only two howitzers to defend herself, was attacked by three or four piratical vessels, and only saved by the extreme gallantry of the young lieutenant who commanded her. 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, might have answered very well for thrashing corn. Instead of doing that, however, the mischief had been perpetuated by the creation of that most extraordinary establishment, the gunboat stable at Haslar. There were forty or fifty gunboats there laid up in a row like horses in a stable, dependent for the means of getting them afloat on a very complicated screw, and the slightest derangement of that machinery would lock them up, so that they might as well be in Winchester Gaol. Such was the strange contrivance of a First Lord of the Admiralty to keep these useless vessels; but the precaution of removing a plank from the bow, and another from the stern of each vessel, to secure internal ventilation was omitted; the timbers were neither kyanized nor subjected to any process to prevent the growth of fungus, and so they had rapidly decayed. Every naval man must perceive the absurdity of the course that had been adopted. He, therefore, recommended the House to institute an inquiry into the whole subject of small vessels, for that was an arm of our navy which, in future was, would be of the greatest advantage if it were properly cared for. His opinion was that the form of these vessels should be entirely altered. In the next war an Armstrong gun might he put aboard each of the penny steamboats on our river; he would undertake in a forenoon to fit one of those boats for the purpose. We should then have vessels of the highest speed under steam carrying guns which could throw shot or shell an immense distance; and those vessels moving with great rapidity, and being painted with a tint which could not be distinguished from the colour of the water a thousand yards off, it would be very difficult to hit them. Such should be the vessels to which we might confide the defence of our shores, and not to those miserable things of which he had given no exaggerated description, and which would be certain to fail us in the hour of need.

said, his hon. and gallant Friend had given them a very graphic description of the defects of the gunboats, and he (Lord C. Paget) was not going to attempt to defend them or to state that they were perfect in all respects. But the best proof he could give that these gunboats were not thought to be perfect by the Admiralty was that the gunboats now in course of construction were built of a very superior form, and would carry a very superior armament to that of the gunboats which had been built at the time which had been alluded to. He agreed with his hon. Friend in what he thought as to the lamentable exposé which had happened at Portsmouth. With respect to these vessels, all he could say was that the Government was not in the act of breaking them up, and this applied particularly to those which were alluded to in the Motion. The moment in which the Admiralty found the very defective state in which they were, they ordered them to be loft in that state, so as to allow the contractors to sec their state, and also with a view to ulterior measures, if any should be adopted. As to the mortar boats at Chatham, he apprehended that it was too late to prevent their being broken up, for by this time the work was in a very forward state; but with regard to the other vessels, no doubt the Admiralty would leave them as they were until it was ascertained what course should be pursued.

said, he fully concurred in the opinion that this was a subject which could not be too often discussed. It was a most important question, for on it depended the lives of our seamen and the defences of the country. 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 of inspectors to look after the contractors, although, as the work was carried on during the night, instead of fewer there should have been more of these officers in attendance than usual. The hon. and gallant Member for Portsmouth had said very truly that these gunboats were unfit for any service but that for which they were originally intended—to make short voyages, not far from our own shores, and to act on an enemy's coast. If we were to go on building these small craft, we ought to build a very different sort of vessel. He hardly thought it would he safe to trust so important a matter in the hands of the Admiralty as at present constituted, seeing that their previous efforts had proved such complete failures. How could it be 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 regard to professional merit? He could hardly recollect 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. [An hon. MEMBER: Sir George Cockburn.] Well, he owned Sir George Cockburn was a distinguished officer; but during the whole eighteen years that he was at the Admiralty scarcely a single improvement took place. In the War Department there were the Adjutant General, the Quartermaster General, and their respective deputies, who could be employed to inquire into anything that went wrong and prepare a report on the subject. But the services of no similar officers were at the disposal of the Admiralty, although in the case of the recent mutinies they would have been found of great value. When the Admiralty wished to make an inquiry into any irregularity on the spot where it occurred, so many of their Lordships went down in their yacht, which was very beautifully fitted up and well stocked with wine, and enjoyed themselves as though they were a mere party of pleasure. He would suggest 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 themselves. 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 Administration of Lord St. Vincent had been subjected to a good deal of criticism. Now, Lord St. Vincent entered upon the duties of First Lord at a time when the fleet was in a deplorable state, but he succeeded in re-establishing discipline. He wished we had another like him to re-establish discipline now, for it bad almost disappeared in our navy. He feared that as long as the navy was governed as at present no true economy would over 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 wore 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 bad made of it, and how quickly the 70 vessels hauled up there had gone to decay. There really ought to be a Committee of Inquiry into the whole question of the government of the navy.

I have refrained from taking any part in the discussion upon the defective state of the gunboats, because my noble Friend the Secretary to the Admiralty has acted in my belief with the greatest fairness. He has promised that every effort to bring the builders of the unseaworthy vessels to punishment will be made by the Admiralty, and, should they fail in doing this, that he himself would move for a Committee of inquiry. No man could do more than this. I think the noble Lord has acted with propriety in withholding the names of the contractors who built the defective vessels, pending the conclusion of the examination into the condition of the greater number. We must bear in mind that these gunboats were required during a great emergency, when it was indispensable that no time should be lost in their construction; the contracts were offered, in the first instance, at £20 a ton; the contractors avowed that it was impossible to find seasoned wood, the Admiralty were apprized of the fact, and, if the Board was satisfied, upon inquiry, with this statement, they were justified under the extreme exigencies of the occasion, in directing that kind of timber to be employed. Still it is, apparently, an extraordinary fact that all the large private yards could not supply a sufficient amount of seasoned wood to build one hundred such vessels; in that case the Admiralty would be justly censured if it had not insisted on its employment at any cost. The honour and reputation of the country, and the lives of officers and men might have been endangered owing to the defective construction of these vessels, I, therefore, cannot command language sufficiently strong to express my abhorrence of the manner in which these gunboats were launched for service. The contractors, in their defence, plead the shortness of time allowed by the Government for the completion of these vessels, and the necessity laid upon them of employing shipwrights with whom they were unacquainted, and whoso honesty and character they were unable to rely. I cannot believe that the contractors were themselves guilty in the face of knowing that their reputation was at stake, and that one day the truth would be elicited. Any miscreant with a chisel and hammer could cut off the bolt-ends in the dead of the night without fear of detection, and dispose of the metal to the marine store dealers. I will not breathe one word of censure against any man without previous inquiry, and I understand the Admiralty has instituted proceedings of that nature to discover the persons worthy of blame, which, I am afraid, will be a task of extreme difficulty. All the Government yards were at the period actively engaged in preparing vessels for sea, when the war was at its height, and I cannot believe that it was in the power of the Surveyor of the Navy to send two or three persons to each of the private yards to oversee the works during their progress. I always believed that these gunboats would prove of no value, and I have some consolation in thinking that now they will give place to a superior class of vessels.

said, he rose to ask the Secretary to the Treasury when it is intended to proceed with the Civil Service Estimates; how soon No. VII. of those Estimates will be laid upon the table of the House, and whether the same will contain an Estimate for the Expenditure of the Commissioners of Woods and Forests during the current year? The hon. Member reminded the House that four months had elapsed since the commencement of the Session, and expressed an opinion that, of late, forty or fifty items were included in No. 7, many of which might very well appear in Nos. 4 and 6.

said, he should he very glad to be able to reply to the first question, but he was sorry to say that the period when the Civil Service Estimates would be taken must depend upon the course of public business, over which he had manifestly no control. It would be necessary before Whitsuntide to ask the House for a Vote on account of those Estimates, as was done last year, and they would be proceeded with on the earliest opportunity of which the state of public business would admit. No. 7 contained those Miscellaneous Votes which could not be ascertained until a late period of the Session, and that class was never presented until late, in order to obviate the necessity of Supplementary Votes. The papers would certainly be presented, and in the hands of hon. Members, so as to give time for consideration at least equal to that which had been the usual practice. With regard to the expenditure of the Woods and Forests, that involved a very grave constitutional question. In 1857 a Committee which inquired into the subject recommended that the salaries should be voted, but not the expense of collecting the revenue, which was settled by the Act by which the Civil List was given to the Sovereign in substitution of it. The Committee of 1857 also pointed out the constitutional difficulty of departing from that course, and it was not the intention of the Government to undertake a responsibility which two Committees admitted was not free from difficulty. The Woods and Forests Estimates would therefore be submitted in the usual form.

Sir, I have no wish to prolong this discussion, but I must say a few words as to the practice which the hon. Secretary to the Treasury has just adverted to—that of voting money on account. I quite agree that there are occasions on which it may be expedient to have recourse to that practice; but I hope it will not become chronic, and that the House will seriously consider before it consents to take this course. The Government may be able to state very fair reasons for it on the present occasion, but the proposition is one which the House of Commons ought to view with great suspicion. It is, in fact, a mode by which all real examination into the expenditure of the country is prevented, and, without referring more particularly to the present case, I wish generally to impress on the House that it is of great importance that this proceeding should be looked on as one of extraordinary character, and one which if persisted in will virtually dispossess this House of all practical control over the expenditure. I am totally unaware what are the circumstances which can justify the Government to make this demand on us. No doubt, the statement which they have to make may be perfectly satisfactory, but, if this demand is only made on us to enable them to go on with business in which the House and the country do not appear to take any great interest, whereas the I expenditure of the country must always be a matter of general interest, I shall view the proposal with feelings not of a character to make me too eager to saction it.

said, he would move that this Bill be committed pro formâ, in order that certain additional clauses which had been proposed by the Attorney General on the part of the Government might be printed. He stated that the measure was simply a conveyancing Bill, and involved no important principle.

said, he hoped that as this Bill involved a number of serious considerations, and the repeal of many Acts, the Government would give an opportunity for its full consideration.

observed, that it was merely a conveyancing Bill to remedy certain defects of title in Roman Catholic trusts. He would suggest its reconsideration that day week. It involved no principle.

said, he must object to that course, as it would be calcu- lated to postpone the discussion of the Bill, and pass it without any.

said, the Bill was the Bill of the hon. Member for Dundalk, and he would fix the day for the consideration of the Bill in Committee.

said, he should oppose the Bill. The law as it stood was now clear, but the proposed Bill would only superinduce confusion. It proposed to limit the liability of innkeepers with respect to goods deposited with them by guests to £40. He moved that the Chairman report progress.

said, at present innkeepers were subject to great injustice, who were compelled to receive guests at any hour; and, whatever property they might bring with them, the innkeeper was liable to the full amount. He thought his liability should be reduced to a reasonable amount.

said, he should support the Bill, though he thought £40 too high a sum.

said, he hoped the Chairman would be allowed to report progress.

said, he had several Amendments to propose.

observed, that the hon. Baronet ought to have given notice of his Amendments.