Page images

ment had got hold of a number of Frenchmen who had broken the law of France, and had said to the French Government, "These men are in our hands, and here they are for you to punish them," what would his hon. Friend have said? They all remembered what took place not long ago when it was proposed to surrender some persons who might have broken the law on the other side of the water. He believed, that if the Government of this country had acted in the manner pointed out by the hon. Member, they would have received--and they certainly would have deserved-the condemnation of that House. The hon. Member asked for the instructions given to the Law Officers of the Crown. It was not the custom for the Foreign Office to give such instructions, or to prepare a case. The practice was to submit all the statements on both sides to the Law Officers of the Crown, who thereupon gave their opinion. There were, therefore, no instructions of this kind to produce. When the ex parte statements of Mr. Taylor were first received, they were laid before the Queen's Advocate, who gave an opinion upon them favourable to Taylor, and condemnatory of the conduct of the Italian Lord Russell thereupon Government. wrote a despatch to the Italian Government in conformity with that opinion, to which despatch the Italian Government replied, giving their version of the case. When the proceedings on the trial were published, and all the documents were brought together, they were again placed before the Queen's Advocate, who then came to a diametrically opposite conclusion from that which he had first entertained. His deliberate opinion now was, that Mr. Taylor was not entitled to any direct interference on the part of Her Majesty's Government; that there had been no negation of justice; that the Courts had been opened to him, but that he refused to go before them; and that if he had gone to the Courts, and justice had been refused him, then was the time to come to the English Government and to ask for their interposition. The question was very simple, and he could not admit that there was the least ground for accusing the Italian Government of any injustice or unfairness to Mr. Taylor. There was no ground for supposing that the Italian Government were actuated by any hostile sentiments against Mr. Taylor. The hon. Member denied that Mr. Taylor had any feeling against Italian unity. He had offered to

were not British subjects.] Well, he found among the names those of Mr. Mooney, Mr. Kelly, and Mr. Costiken, and several others of similar origin, which spoke for themselves. There were on the list eighty-five names in all, and out of those three were Italian ; here were, besides, ten or twelve stokers, and most of the others were English, with the exception of one or two French. [An hon. MEMBER: There were only eighteen Englishmen.] Well, be that as it might, Mr. and Mrs. Taylor having left the island, and the Orwell having been taken possession of by those persons whom his hon. Friend designated Garibaldians, they went to Monte Cristo, where their first act was to disarm the troops of the King of Italy who were stationed there, and in spite of them to sack Mr. and Mrs. Taylor's house, who, if they had remained on their property, very possibly might have saved it." At any rate, he (Mr. Layard) denied that any responsibility rested with the Italian Government. He could not admit that the Italian Government were liable for the acts committed by persons who were not their subjects, who were not in their service, and who landed in the island in spite of the opposition of their officers. Mr. Taylor, however, applied to the Italian Government for compensation. What was the answer of Count Cavour? His hon. Friend said that Count Cavour had altogether refused to indemnify him for his loss. Now, that was not so. He said if Mr. Taylor had been wronged, let him bring his action before the proper tribunals, and let the case be tried. It would be time to come to the Italian Government when he had been refused justice by the courts of law which were open to him. The hon. Member had cited the case of Don Pacifico, but that was an illustration against the hon. Member. It was because Don Pacifico could not obtain a legal investigation and redress that the English Government interfered. In like manner, if a similar denial of justice could be pleaded by Mr. Taylor, the Government would also have interfered in his case. The hon. Member asked why the Italian Government did not punish the "persons" who were on board the Orwell, and he seemed to think it was the duty of the English Government to go to the Italian Government and say, "We have got these men, and they are at your disposal.' This was the most extraordinary doctrine he had ever heard. Suppose the English GovernMr. Layard


was able to do battle with a strong enemy | tifiable character. That was his (Mr. as well as with a weak one, and to fight Bovill's) deliberate opinion; and he had against a Government which was popular, less hesitation in giving it, because the as well as against one that was essentially noble Earl the Foreign Secretary and the unpopular. A British subject was not in- Queen's Advocate had spoken to the same ferior in his privileges to a Frenchman or effect. Beyond that, there was the distinct an American, and he believed he was quot- admisssion of the Government of Turin ing the words of the noble Lord himself, that they were proceedings which would when he said that in whatever quarter of never have been commenced by that Gothe world he might be, an Englishman vernment. Then how was it, he would ought to be able to feel confident that the ask, after these expressions of opinion, watchful eye and the strong arm of Old that no amends had been made or granted England would ever be ready to protect to Mr. Watson Taylor for the wrongs him against injustice and wrong. committed against him and his property? In what light did the Piedmontese Government view these proceedings? What offered to Mr. Taylor? Why, he had was the compensation which they had been recommended to royal clemency, and had received a free pardon. The compensation was merely this-that Mr. Watson Taylor had been relieved of all the costs to which he had rendered himself liable; and that was considered sufficient compensation for all the indignities he had suffered, and those most unjustifiable proceedings against him! In this country there was a power in the Crown to stop legal proceedings, by directing a nolle prosequi to be entered; and it seemed to be admitted by Baron Ricasoli that the same power was possessed by the Government of Italy. But let the House assume that the Government did not possess this power. Who were the parties who put the proceedings against Mr. Taylor into operation? Why, they were persons in the employ and pay, and acting under the orders of the Government. Then, could it be said that the Government had no power over their own officials, and could not stop those proceedings? It could not; but for some purpose or another, of the most ridiculous nature, the proceedings against Mr. Taylor were continued. He would next refer to the evidence of Mr. Consul Macbean. Consul Macbean said

Amendment proposed,

To leave out from the word "That" to the end

of the Question, in order to add the words "an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, that She will be graciously pleased to give directions that there be laid before this House, Copies of any Correspondence relative to the case of Mr. George Græme Watson Taylor, in which Baron sons who committed the outrage ever were in the pay or under the control of, or in any way connected with, the then Sardinian Government; and also such Extracts from the Instructions laid before the Queen's Advocate, between the 19th

Ricasoli is shown to have denied that the ·


day of August 1861 and the 9th day of Decem. ber in the same year, as shall suffice to show the facts which in that interval were submitted to him by Her Majesty's Government; and, of the List of Prisoners taken from on board the Orwell,' which is attached to Sir Gaspard Le Marchant's Despatch of the 15th day of Sep

tember 1860,"

-instead thereof.

Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

MR. BOVILL said, that in seconding the Motion he had no desire to cast any blame upon Her Majesty's Government, or upon the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs; but he was convinced, that upon a fuller investigation, and a more complete ascertainment of the facts, the noble Lord and every Member of the Government would be convinced that a most grievous wrong had been committed. A great injury had been done and a grievous insult offered to a British subject, who, up to that hour, had not obtained the slightest redress. Mr. Watson Taylor was at the time of the proceedings complained of residing under the Sardinian law, and was therefore entitled to its protection. The proceedings in question against him were commenced in the courts of Elba, and every gentleman who had read the statement of them must have come to the conclusion that they were of a most unjus


'Mr. Taylor is accused of having struck the corporal on the breast with his open hand, but without doing him any injury, and of not having yielded obedience to the corporal when ordered to deliver up the key of his oven to a servant to whom Mrs. Taylor had refused to give it. That was construed into an act of resisting the public force, and for having done so Mr. Taylor was condemned to other six months' imprisonment." As all this is alleged to have occurred at the door of Mr. Taylor's house, which is at some distance from the soldiers' barracks, it is surprising that it did not occur to the judges that the unsolicited attend

ance of the corporal and three soldiers, and their interference in Mr. Taylor's domestic arrangements was a piece of gratuitous impertinence, and that their conduct had been more calculated to create than to prevent disturbance. Mr. Macbean further observed

"It does seem monstrous that such a persecution should be permitted in a country enjoying constitutional liberty."

the King or the authorities of Sardinia had sanctioned the fitting-out of the expedition, according to international law Sardinia was responsible. And no one could doubt that the expedition was fitted cut out either at the instance of the King, or with his knowledge and sanction. So notorious had it been in England that Englishmen were enlisting under Garibaldi for the service of the King of Sardinia, that the matter was made the subject of discussion in that House. He could not but think that if all the information that might be procured were laid before them the responsibility of the Sardinian Government would be made clear to the law officers of the Crown; and he therefore begged to second the Motion of his hon, Friend.


In what way had these allegations been met? Certain statements were made that the proceedings were according to the ordinary course of law. Now, the complaint was not that they were not in the ordinary course of law, but that they ought not to have been instituted at all, and that was admitted even by the Government of Turin; but having been commenced and carried on in the tribunals established in the kingdom of Italy, the result was that the Government of that country ought to be held responsible for the freedom of a British subject, and for outrages committed by their officers on his property. That appeared to be the opinion of Her Majesty's Government. Then, what was Mr. Watson Taylor to do when he found himself in the position of an accused? Was he to subject himself to the small Court of Elba and suffer imprisonment? He adopted the only alternative open to him. He came home; but in doing so he necessarily left his property unprotected, and the result was that he had suffered serious loss. That formed the first part of his claim. On the same ground that entitled him to a free pardon, he was entitled to further compensation. The next part of his claim arose from the loss sustained by him in having had his vineyards, bullocks, and other property swept away by the party on board the Orwell. There was no doubt about it that those persons were in the service of Garibaldi, whatever may have been the character of those in whose hands the vessel had originally been. At the time the party on board the Orwell landed on the island, Tuscany had been annexed to Sardinia, and Mr. Taylor was living under the protection of the King. If the persons on board the ship, and who had enlisted under Garibaldi, were acting under the authority and with the sanction of the King, there could be no doubt of the liability of the Sardinian Government; but it was not necessary to go that length, for if those Garibaldians had enlisted in the kingdom of Sardinia, under the eyes of the King, and with his approval, and if Mr. Bovill

MR. LAYARD said, he willingly accepted the disclaimer of the hou. Member who had made this Motion, that in bringing the subject before the House he had any wish to make observations hostile to Her Majesty's Government or was influenced by any political motive whatever. But, if that were the case, he thought some of those hon. Members who sat near his hon. Friend did not understand the object he had in view; because, whenever he said anything against the Italian Government, he was loudly cheered by those hon. Members. ["No, no!"] He did not say that there were not many hon. Members on the Opposition side who had not cheered those observations; but certainly many hon. Members near the hon. Gentleman cheered when he made any remark hostile to the Italian Government. ["No, no!"] His hon. Friend had led the House to believe that Mr. Watson Taylor was the object of some great persecution; that he had an enemy in Baron Ricasoli, an enemy in Count Cavour, an enemy in those who were with him on the island, an enemy in the Italian people, an enemy in her Majesty's Government, and enemies among those who sat on the Ministerial benches. ["No, no!" Well, as far as he could see, the remarks of his hon. Friend led to no other conclusion; but his opinion was that there was no such ill-feeling against Mr. Watson Taylor. He was quite sure, from a perusal of the papers, that his hon. Friend could find no evidence of a hostile feeling against Mr. Taylor on the part of Baron Ricasoli or Count Cavour. And, why should there be? Mr. Taylor was an English gentleman spending money in improving an island which for centuries had

Taylor did not appear in Court, and the Court was obliged to decide upon the propositions submitted to it. However, the executive Government in Italy did interfere at the very first moment they could by granting a free pardon, which was followed by a full recompense for the costs to which Mr. Taylor had rendered himself liable. Therefore it is not possible to find grounds in that case for urging the Government to further interference. The hon. and learned Member for Guildford, seeing that the case laid before the House was insufficient for the purpose, took a totally distinct ground, and said that these proceedings were condemned by the Italian Government themselves, and therefore they were bound to give compensation. But the hon. and learned Gentleman was mistaken in respect to what was done by the Italian Government, for Baron Ricasoli said that the process being one of criminal law, all interference on the part of the Government was impossible. The reasonable construction of the words used is, that Baron Ricasoli, taking much the same view of the proceedings as the Foreign Office, thought that though there was much to complain of in the conduct of the gentleman and lady, there was yet nothing to justify the infliction of so serious a sentence as was pronounced, and accordingly that sentence was not carried into execution. But that concession did not amount to a condemnation of the judicial proceedings, which were strictly legal in themselves, so as to give a title to compensation. The case of the Orwell must be carefully separated from the other part of the proceedings, though it is desired to connect them by asserting that the prejudice known to exist on the part of the Italian Government against Mr. Taylor encouraged persons to destroy his property in his absence. That, however, is a gratuitous assertion, for which there is no proof in the papers on the table. With respect to the Orwell, three distinct claims for compensation are set up. One is that the Orwell sailed under the Italian flag; but that assertion is totally destitute of foundation, as Consul Macbean, a favourite witness with my hon. Friend, describes this vessel, when engaged in this operation, as being the British steamer Orwell. Sir James Hudson goes directly to the point in his official despatches, and states that the Orwell, when it stopped at Monte Cristo, was under British colours. But then it is said that the omission on the part of the Italian Government to take

dation is given. Perhaps it is a case in which, like the hon. and learned Gentleman, the Member for Guildford (Mr. Bovill), he thinks it right to apply a principle of English law to the state of foreign countries; that, because in this country the Crown has the power of stopping a criminal prosecution, therefore the Crown in other countries should have the same power. In this country it may be safe that the Crown should have such a power; but it appears to me, that except in a country where the whole system of judicial procedure is thoroughly understood, and well established by long usage in the opinions of the people, the power of the executive Government to stop criminal proceedings would be most pernicious. But when interference on the part of the executive Government of Italy with the course of justice is recommended, why, let me ask, has there been a revolution in Italy; why have there been demands for Italian unity; and why have the Italians forgotten their municipal prejudices and traditions, and struggled heart and soul to found one single national body, unless it were because for generations the law had been trampled on by every Government that had existed in that country? The purpose for which the present Italian Government was called into existence was that they might set an example of respect for the law, and lay the foundations of judicial independence. Deeply regretting Mr. Taylor's sufferings, I am bound to say that he does not stand altogether rectus in curiâ. When called on to interfere with the independent action of a foreign Government, we must look and see whether our case is really so complete, and whether we can approach that foreign Government in all the panoply of reason and justice. Mr. Watson Taylor had the misfortune to live on Italian territory in times of revolution, and in those times there is one claim which both parties in the struggle have to make on foreigners within the territory, and that is a claim for the observance of ordinary prudence and caution. Now, if any one refers to page 7 of the Parliamentary Papers, enumerating propositions found to be proved before the Court at Elba, he will see that Mr. and Mrs. Watson Taylor both failed in this respect. The language, which was not denied in the Court to have been used, and the gestures employed to give additional force to it, showed a very great want of prudence on the part of both those persons. His hon. Friend forgot that Mr.

precautions for the protection of this property gave a title to compensation. But would it be contended that when a piratical or semi-piratical expedition is fitted out, or an unauthorized military expedition undertaken, the country is to be responsible for the acts committed on the part of that expedition? That is a doctrine the application of which would be inconvenient to all Governments, and not the least to the English Government, and is not warranted by any authority or principle of international law. It is likewise said that the Italian Government is responsible because of their connection with Garibaldi. But that seems a very fine-drawn argument. It is strange to contend that because the result of a long series of events was a revolution, which Garibaldi had a share in fomenting, and which led to the annexation of certain territories to the Italian Crown, therefore the Italian Government must be responsible for what a lawless body of men did upon lauding at Monte Cristo on their way from Genoa. My hon. Friend was mistaken in saying that there is not a word in Count Cavour's despatch bearing on the case of the Orwell; for Count Cavour states, with distinctness

"I am not aware if Mr. Taylor has suffered losses which he did not bring upon himself, and which were not consequent upon the facts which the tribunal has established as chargeable to him; but upon every hypothesis, if he can draw up legitimate reclamations, diplomatic intervention could only take place, it appears to me, when all justice shall have been refused him by competent authority; whereas the tribunals are open to him, to be so, Mr. Taylor may be equally sure that the rights which may belong to him shall not be disregarded."

and if he has been condemned when he merited

That principle completely covers the case of the Orwell. Taking, then, the case of Mr. Watson Taylor in the point of view most favourable to himself, I put it with confidence to the House that it is his duty to exhaust the remedies which the Italian law may offer against the owners of the Orwell, or any other parties, before his claim can legitimately become the subject of any diplomatic interference. On these grounds I hold that the Government ought not to be urged; or, as the Scotch very expressly say, concussed, into further ac tion on this subject.

MR. KINGLAKE said, that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had undertaken to address himself especially to the dispassionate portion of the House-of that portion of the House he humbly claimed to be oneThe Chancellor of the Exchequer

but he was a little amazed at finding that the very moment the right hon. Gentleman had uttered that sentence he proceeded to appeal, not, perhaps, to what could strictly be called a passion, but to one of the strongest feelings of Englishmen-namely, the sentiment which always induced them to look favourably upon the conduct of an absent man. The right hon. Gentleman had studiously endeavoured to put forward Sir James Hudson in such a way as to make him intercept the justice of the House. He had himself read this paper with care, and ventured to think, that if "the dispassionate portion of the House" gave full attention to this case, the view it would take would not be that urged upon it by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but the view so ably submitted by the hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. C. Bentinck). In like manner the Under Secretary of State (Mr. Layard), began by speaking in very strong terms of the conduct of a portion of the House in cheering some sentences that fell from the hon. Member for Taunton, charging them with exhibiting a bitter feeling of animosity against the Government of Sardinia. Could anything be more unfair than such a taunt? The hon. Member for Taunton, having undertaken to show that Mr. Watson Taylor had been ill-used by the Sardinian Government, made some observations tending to make out his case, when those who agreed with him naturally cheered him, and then they were told from the Treasury Bench that their cheers indicated their malignant animosity towards a foreign Government. At the outset of his speech the Under Secretary of State also said that this was a mere dry question of law, and yet before a minute had elapsed he wrought himself up into a state of effervescence and animation hardly in keeping with that intimation. There were, no doubt, legal questions involved in this subject; but it also involved questions of deep interest to all public men, and he ventured to say that in the whole of the Session they had hardly had a matter before them of greater importance, or one more deserving their careful attention. Both the Under Secretary of State and the Chancellor of the Exchequer had thought proper to echo the opinion given by the late Count Cavour-namely, that whatever wrongs Mr. Watson Taylor might have suffered, his duty was to have recourse to the ordinary tribunals of the

[ocr errors]
« PreviousContinue »