Government which then existed. Now, to the regions beyond the Atlantic the could not their Lordships suppose, if such common law of England, and they had in evils might arise from the unauthorised various instances given us an example of interference of those who were loyal and improvements effected in that law which well-intentioned, what might not be ap- we should do well to follow. He must say prehended from those who were disloyal, that in jurisprudence the Americans had disaffected, and factious? They might in gained an ascendancy over us which should this way seek to thwart the measures of not, indeed, excite our envy, but which the Government of their native country; should prompt our emulation. Now, what they might be the instrument of bringing course had been taken upon this subject in about a war, and of sowing dissension, dis- America-and taken, be it remembered, cord, and disaffection at home. Upon this in no way contrary to the natural or consubject, although the law of nations was stitutional rights of American citizens? such as he had described, our municipal It was felt in America that very consideralaw was defective, and it was in order to ble inconvenience was experienced from cure this defect that he ventured to pro- the interference by American citizens with pose the present Bill. For any offence foreign Governments. That had been felt committed within the realm the existing for some years, and there was a particular municipal law was sufficient to punish. instance of it in the case of a certain Dr. For instance, if there were a conspiracy Logan, who had been in communication in the county of Middlesex for inviting the with the French Convention with respect wrongful interference of a foreign nation, to matters pending between the Governeven although we might not happen to be ments of America and France. A meaat war with that nation, no doubt our courts sure was accordingly proposed by two of would have jurisdiction, and the offender the greatest statesmen and greatest pamight be punished. But for what was done triots that had ever adorned any country abroad you have no remedy by the common law of England. There must be a grand jury in each county, and that grand jury is to find each indictment, which indictment can only relate to what is done within the body of the county. It followed that those who combined to thwart the measures of the Government, or to do in connection with any foreign Government what would be detrimental to the interests of their own country, would escape punishment, unless it could be proved that the plan originated in England, and unless you could show an overt act committed in England. Although it could have been proved that at the bar of the National Convention in France an address was presented of a most seditious nature, calling upon the French nation to take part against England, you could not, by the simple proof of that fact, award punishment. With regard to high treason and murder, this defect had been remedied, and wherever they were committed, in whatever part of the globe, these crimes might be inquired into and punished in the county of Middlesex. With regard, however, to every crime which ranged within the term of misdemeanor, the defect remained unremedied. This being the case, he would draw their Lordships' attention to what bad been done by our brethren in America. The first settlers there had carried along with them Lord Campbell Adams and Jefferson. In 1799 John Adams was President of the United States, and Thomas Jefferson Vice President, and under their auspices a Bill was introduced into Congress, which, with their Lordships' permission, he would now read. It was short, but it was cogent, and he must allow that he was not aware of the exist ence of this piece of American legislation when he had framed the present Bill. The American Bill was more stringent than his, and provided a severer punishment. These were the words of it— "Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, that if any person, being a citizen of the United States, whether he be actually resident or abiding within the United the permission or authority of the Government of States or in any foreign country, shall, without the United States, directly, or indirectly, commence or carry on any verbal or written correspondence or intercourse with any foreign Government, or any officer or agent thereof, with an inforeign Government, or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the Government of the United States; within the United States, and not duly authorised, or if any person, being a citizen of, or resident shall counsel, advise, aid, or assist in any such correspondence, with intent as aforesaid, he or they shall be deemed guilty of a high misdemeanor, and, upon conviction before any court of the United States having jurisdiction thereof, shall be punished by a fine not exceeding 5,000 dollars, and by imprisonment during a term of tent to influence the measures or conduct of any same sort to be introduced by his noble Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department. He should take an opportunity of referring to this matter on a future occasion; it seemed to him to be an object of the greatest possible importance, and he could bear his testimony to the admirable working of an institution of the kind to which he had referred, which he had lately inspected while on a tour in France, and which was worthy of the highest commendation. He referred to the great institution at Mettray founded by Viscount Corbillieux and M. Demetz, upon the plan first adopted at Stretton upon Dunsmure in Warwickshire, which unhappily, after many years of successful action and rendering incalculable benefits to society, has within the last two months been given up for want of funds. Petition ordered to lie on the table. UNAUTHORISED NEGOTIATIONS BILL. Order of the Day for the Second Reading read. LORD CAMPBELL, in moving the second reading of this Bill, said, that he was well aware of the responsibility he incurred by laying this Bill on the table of their Lordships' House, inasmuch as it sought to extend the penal law of the country. He hoped that the Bill would operate only by way of prevention, and that, after it had passed into law, what it sought to remedy would have ceased to exist. At the same time he proposed to establish a new misdemeanor, which, although liable only to a mild punishment, could not be proposed without casting upon the person who proposed it the burden of proving that it would not interfere with any natural or constitutional right, and that some evil had been experienced, or might be apprehended, which rendered legislation necessary. He believed that he should be able to show to their Lordships that the Bill now before them did not interfere with any natural or constitutional right, and that it was called for by evils which had been experienced, and by greater evils which might be apprehended. There could, he presumed, be no doubt that the law of nations was correctly laid down in the preamble of the Bill; there could be no doubt that, by the law of nations, intercourse between States could only be legitimately carried on by the Governments of those States, or by Ministers or officials duly authorised to carry on negotiations. It would be pedantry in him to quote authorities upon this subject; but he could, by quotations from Grotius down to the present time, show their Lordships that every jurist had either assumed the doctrine, or had expressly laid it down for law. Не should content himself with referring their Lordships to an authority which they would all reverence-he meant Edmund Burkean Englishman, or he was perhaps wrong in saying Englishman, because he was one of the glories of Ireland. Mr. Burke, in his celebrated letter to the Duke of Portland, published in 1793, used this language: The laws and constitution of the kingdom intrust the sole and exclusive right of communicating with foreign potentates to the King. This is an undisputed part of the legal perogative of the Crown." Then Mr. Burke designated an unauthorised interference with a foreign Government “a most unconstitutional act," and added— "The legitimate and sure mode of communication between this nation and foreign Powers is rendered uncertain, precarious, and treacherous, by being divided into two channels, by which of the real authority or validity of any public means the foreign Powers can never be assured transaction whatsoever." He then pointed out that such unauthorised land for the intrigues of foreign Courts in communications "make a highway in Eng our affairs;" and concluded with these em phatic words— "This is a sore evil, an evil from which, before this time, England was more free than any other nation. Nothing can preserve us from that evil, which connects Cabinet factions abroad with po pular factions here, but the keeping sacred the Crown as the only channel of communication with every other nation.” Now, the facts upon which Mr. Burke based these observations were, he believed, not actually existing; but the authority of that statesman's name upon the abstract question of law was equally great, this being the doctrine he laid down upon the supposition that the state of things which he apprehended really did exist. There could be no doubt that even with those who had no evil intention-even with the loyal, the patriotic, and the intelligent-evil might arise from unauthorised communications with foreign Powers. They might thwart unconsciously the measures of their own Government; they might lay themselves open to mistification and cajolery on the part of those with whom they interfered; and they might be made the tools of foreign Powers in spreading in this country doctrines and opinions that were unfavourable to the Government which then existed. Now, to the regions beyond the Atlantic the could not their Lordships suppose, if such common law of England, and they had in evils might arise from the unauthorised various instances given us an example of interference of those who were loyal and improvements effected in that law which well-intentioned, what might not be ap- we should do well to follow. He must say prehended from those who were disloyal, that in jurisprudence the Americans had disaffected, and factious? They might in gained an ascendancy over us which should this way seek to thwart the measures of not, indeed, excite our envy, but which the Government of their native country; should prompt our emulation. Now, what they might be the instrument of bringing course had been taken upon this subject in about a war, and of sowing dissension, dis- America-and taken, be it remembered, cord, and disaffection at home. Upon this in no way contrary to the natural or consubject, although the law of nations was stitutional rights of American citizens? such as he had described, our municipal It was felt in America that very consideralaw was defective, and it was in order to ble inconvenience was experienced from cure this defect that he ventured to pro- the interference by American citizens with pose the present Bill. For any offence foreign Governments. That had been felt committed within the realm the existing for some years, and there was a particular municipal law was sufficient to punish. instance of it in the case of a certain Dr. For instance, if there were a conspiracy Logan, who had been in communication in the county of Middlesex for inviting the with the French Convention with respect wrongful interference of a foreign nation, to matters pending between the Governeven although we might not happen to be ments of America and France. A meaat war with that nation, no doubt our courts sure was accordingly proposed by two of would have jurisdiction, and the offender the greatest statesmen and greatest pamight be punished. But for what was done triots that had ever adorned any country abroad you have no remedy by the com- -Adams and Jefferson., In 1799 John mon law of England. There must be a Adams was President of the United States, grand jury in each county, and that grand and Thomas Jefferson Vice President, and jury is to find each indictment, which under their auspices a Bill was introduced indictment can only relate to what is into Congress, which, with their Lorddone within the body of the county. It ships' permission, he would now read. It followed that those who combined to was short, but it was cogent, and he must thwart the measures of the Government, allow that he was not aware of the existor to do in connection with any foreign ence of this picce of American legislation Government what would be detrimental when he had framed the present Bill. to the interests of their own country, The American Bill was more stringent would escape punishment, unless it could than his, and provided a severer punishbe proved that the plan originated in ment. These were the words of itEngland, and unless you could show an overt act committed in England. Although it could have been proved that at the bar of the National Convention in France an address was presented of a most seditious nature, calling upon the French nation to take part against England, you could not, by the simple proof of that fact, award punishment. With regard to high treason and murder, this defect had been remedied, and wherever they were committed, in whatever part of the globe, these crimes might be inquired into and punished in the county of Middlesex. With regard, however, to every crime which or if any person, being a citizen of, or resident ranged within the term of misdemeanor, the defect remained unremedied. This being the case, he would draw their Lordships' attention to what had been done by our brethren in America. The first settlers there had carried along with them Lord Campbell "Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, that if any person, being a citizen of the United States, whether he be ac tually resident or abiding within the United States or in any foreign country, shall, without the permission or authority of the Government of the United States, directly, or indirectly, commence or carry on any verbal or written correspondence or intercourse with any foreign Government, or any officer or agent thereof, with an intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign Government, or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the mea sures of the Government of the United States; within the United States, and not duly authorised, shall counsel, advise, aid, or assist in any such correspondence, with intent as aforesaid, he or they shall be deemed guilty of a high misdemeanor, and, upon conviction before any court shall be punished by a fine not exceeding 5,000 of the United States having jurisdiction thereof, dollars, and by imprisonment during a term of not less than six months, nor exceeding three | Robert Adair, now in his 92nd year, but years." Then follows this proviso "Provided always, that nothing in this Act contained shall be construed to abridge the right of individual citizens of the United States to apply, by themselves or their lawful agents, to any foreign Government, or the agents thereof, for the redress of any injuries in relation to person or property, which such individuals may have sustained from such Government, or any of its agents, citizens, or subjects." She retaining in full vigour the great talents that he had displayed in early life, and who was a man of the most unsullied character, had declared-and he (Lord Campbell) most implicitly believed him-that what Mr. Burke had imagined respecting his mission to Russia never took place-that he (Sir Robert Adair) was at St. Petersburg during that dispute, but merely as a traveller, improving his mind and acquiring that knowledge which afterwards made him a most accomplished diplomatist and enabled him to render most essential services to his country. He (Lord Campbell) believed, therefore, that in point of fact what Mr. Burke suspected was entirely without foundation. At that time, however, their Lordships would recollect that the Empress Catherine was pursuing her conquests against the Turks. was striving to make progress in that longcherished Russian plan of subjugating Turkey and of getting possession of Constantinople and the Dardanelles. Mr. Pitt, at that time Prime Minister, wished to check her ambition. Now, those who in Parliament disapproved of his policy were believed to have sent a deputation to the Empress Catherine, to recommend her to proceed in her course, and to represent that a great part of the English nation sympathised with her. Now, if this had been really done, it was impossible to tell the mischief that might have ensued; and he (Lord Campbell) was at a loss to see what would have been the remedy. The parties might, indeed, have been impeached; but after the experience of that process in the case of Warren Hastings, impeachment was a thing very well to talk of, but certainly no practical remedy for a serious evil of this kind; and he knew of no proceedings before a jury by which punishment could be inflicted for such conduct. He believed that, on the part of the Opposition of that day, there were no grounds for saying that any such deputation had been sent. But just about that time there could be no doubt that a very improper intercourse did take place between English subjects and foreign Powers. When the French Revolution was in progress, and the Convention had become the supreme power of the State, there were various bodies of men in England who wished to imitate the example which had been set in France, who wished to upset our happy limited monarchy, and to establish a republic instead. There were Sir various addresses from such sections of Eng This Bill was introduced into the House of Representatives in America, where it was at first strongly opposed; but after many discussions it passed by a majority of 58 to 36. It then went up to the Senate, where he might say so without offence to the House of Representatives-there was more calmness, more statesman-like knowledge, and where, as his noble and learned Friend (Lord Brougham) reminded him, they had the foreign policy of the country directly under their cognisance. In the Senate this Act was carried by a majority of 18 to 2. There were only two dissentients, and it received the assent of the President, and became law on the 30th of January, 1799. He (Lord Campbell) was informed that the Bill had worked most beneficially in America, and his information came from undoubted authority-from Mr. Buchanan, the present Minister of the United States here one of the illustrious line of jurists and statesmen who had adorned the United States. The law had not become a dead letter, although it had never been acted upon by way of prosecution, for Mr. Buchanan stated that there had not been one single prosecution instituted for the infraction of the law, and it had been thoroughly observed by the citizens of the United States. This then, he thought, was a high example, to which great weight ought to be attached. But he allowed that the existence of such a law as this in America would not form sufficient grounds for the interference of Parliament if no inconvenience had been felt, and none was to be apprehended, from the want of such law in England. He should be able to show, however, that the most serious inconvenience had been suffered, and that great inconvenience might be apprehended if Parliament did not interfere in this matter. He would not deny that what was supposed to have taken place in 1791, when there was a dispute between the Empress Catherine and the English Government, did not really happen. lish subjects delivered vivá voce at the bar of the Convention, calling upon the French nation to go to war with their neighbours (who were then in amity with us) and to assist them in bringing about a revolution in this country. He could only give their Lordships a single example of these addresses in the form of an address from the London Constitutional Society, presented in the year 1792. It was addressed "To the National Convention in France, Servants of a Sovereign People and Benefactors of Mankind;" and was presented at the bar of the Convention by two deputies -Mr. Frost and Mr. Barlow-both of them British subjects. It was couched in these words: "We rejoice that your Revolution has arrived at that point of perfection which will permit us to address you by this title; it is the only one that can accord with the character of true legislators, Every successive epoch in your affairs has added something to the triumphs of liberty, and the glorious victory of the 10th of August has finally prepared the way for a Constitution which we trust you will establish on the basis of reason and nature. The events of every day are proving that your cause is cherished by the people in all your continental vicinity; that a majority of each of those nations are your real friends, whose Governments have tutored them into apparent foes, and that they only wait to be delivered by your arms from the dreaded necessity of fighting against them. Our Government has still the power, and perhaps the inclination, to employ hirelings to contradict us; but it is our real opinion that we now speak the sentiments of a great majority of the English nation. The people here are wearied with imposture and worn out with war. Go on, Legislators, in the work of human happiness. The benefits will in part be ours but the glory shall be at an end, the law remained in its original defective state. On account of the tranquillity which prevailed for a number of years, the evil was little felt; but in the great revolutionary year of 1848 much inconvenience was again the result. Their Lord. ships would remember-his noble Friend then Lord Lieutenant of Ireland (the Earl of Clarendon) would certainly rememberthe revolutionary attempts which charaeterised that year. In Ireland a plan was formed for dissolving the connection between that country and Great Britain, and for forming Ireland into an independent republic; and, when a republic was established in France, there went a deputation from İreland, headed by Mr. Smith O'Brien, to the members of the Provisional Government, who then represented the Government of France. He held in his hand the address which had been presented to the ruling powers at Paris by Mr. Smith O'Brien, and which ran thus: "We salute you as arbiters of the future destinies of the human race, as the liberators of enslaved nations. We, from whom nationality has been wrested by the most infamous means-we, who ever feel the evils arising from this inexpressible wrong-we, the people of Ireland, demand your sympathy. Ireland has declared that once more she shall be free and independent. Be ever ready to succour the oppressed. Make France the centre, not only of civilisation and of the arts, but also of universal liberty." Deputations from Liverpool and other towns in England delivered similar addresses; some of them more violent. M. Lamartine, on that occasion, acted with the greatest reserve, and skilfully evaded the request, but it was an application that France should interfere by armed force, and assist Ireland in establishing an independent republic. On returning from Paris, Mr. Smith O'Brien appeared in his place in the House of Commons as though he had done nothing of which he need be ashamed, and the law was quite powerless to reach him. But he was denounced by his (Lord Campbell's) beloved and respected Friend Sir George Grey, then Home Se all your own. In this career of improvement your example will soon be followed; for nations, rising from their lethargy, will reclaim the rights of man with a voice which man cannot resist." This was a specimen of the address delivered by English deputations at that time, and we had no law to punish or prevent such proceedings; for when Frost and his companion returned, it would have been no evidence against them to show that they had presented such a document to the Convention. This address incited the French to make war against our allies; it sought to en-cretary, in a speech which would not, from courage the French Assembly to assist the English nation to change their form of Government; and it held up the standard of universal revolution. Soon after this, war was declared between the two countries, and then the Treason and Sedition Bills were brought in. These Bills, while the war existed, of course effectually prevented any such unauthorised communications; but when, in 1815, the war was Lord Campbell its force and ability, be forgotten by those who had either heard or read it; but was it right that a person who had delivered such an address to a foreign Government should be allowed to walk about our streets with impunity? The next case of undue interposition on the part of individuals with foreign Governments was that address with which an exLord Mayor of London had waited upon |