prison, released the prisoners, and brought them on board to the number of 391. The vessel then sailed for the mainland of Italy, and late at night on the 28th arrived at Sapri. It was then intimated to the captain of the vessel, for the first time since the rising against him, that he was a free man. The captain immediately determined to set sail for Naples to inform the consul and the Neapolitan authorities of the disaster, and on the morning of the 29th, while the Cagliari was on the high seas, at the distance, certainly, of not less than six miles from any land, she was seized by a Neapolitan squadron of two steam frigates under the command of a Neapolitan rear-admiral. It was important to remark that the Neapolitan steamers approached from a direction opposite to that in which the Cagliari was going, and consequently not in the direction of pursuit. In point of fact, this was the first minute the officers of the Neapolitan squadron ever set eyes on the Cagliari. Lord Clarendon, the then Minister of Foreign Affairs, had stated that the captain of the Cagliari had surrendered to the Neapolitan officers, but from the log of the vessel, and from the statement of the Attorney-General of the Neapolitan Government, the truth of the matter appeared to be that when the Cagliari was sighted by the Neapolitan cruizers, and when the latter came near her, they fired a shot. The officers of the Neapolitan frigates made preparations for clearing for action, and then signalled the captain of the Cagliari to come on board with all his papers. When he went on board, he was treated to

all intents and purposes as a prisoner; he was subjected to an inquisition, an officer was sent on board the Cagliari to search for arms, and returned bearing two cases of arms; one of the cruizers was ordered to take the Cagliari in tow, and did accordingly take her in tow and brought her to Naples. It was clear, then, that there existed no right on the part of the Neapolitan cruizer to treat the Cagliari as a lawful capture. No sort of offence bearing the nature of an international crime was committed from first to last, and from the moment of the rising of the men against the Sardinian crew the offence committed was one against the municipal law of Sardinia. It being impossible for the Neapolitan Government to treat the case of the Cagliari as a case of piracy, they endeavoured to treat it as a case of war; but not of war between Naples and Sardinia, or England, but of war between the King of the two Sicilies and a small body of insurgents, and the Neapolitan authorities had endeavoured to deduce from this fanciful supposition of a private war the consequence that they had belligerent rights, not merely against the insurgents themselves, but also against all persons who happened to be neutrals in this great war; and that they were entitled to take Englishmen into custody, and have their innocence attested by Prize Courts-the Prize Court being an institution belonging exclusively to a state of war. The capture of the two unfortunate English engineers occurred as long back as the 29th of June last, and from that hour to the present those poor men had been subject to imprison

ment. The hon. and learned gentleman concluded by referring to the treatment experienced by the English engineers, the consequence of which was, that one was now suffering from illness, and the other was unfortunately reduced to a state of insanity, and inquired whether there were any further papers on the subject which, without detriment to the public service, could be laid on the table of the House. The Chancellor of the Exchequer expressed his sympathy with the engineers, but objected to the production of the papers. The late Government, acting upon the advice of the Law-officers of the Crown, had recognised the jurisdiction of the Government of Naples; the question is one of law, not of policy; and the British Government are foreclosed from opening the question. We can do no more than obtain prompt justice for our countrymen, and show them they are not deserted. Lord Malmesbury has sent a gentleman from Rome (Mr.Lyons) "to sustain and comfort them," and has protested strongly against delay. Mr. Kinglake had not expressed any "unamiable feeling" towards the Government of Naples, and Mr. Disraeli was glad of that, as intemperate or violent language would not improve the position of our countrymen.

This view of the question did not meet with approbation. Mr. Headlam denied the jurisdiction of Naples. Mr. Roebuck said that the Government had committed an act of piracy. Instead of using "amiable" language, he would have spoken with cannonshot. Mr. Horsman said the question could not remain in the position in which Mr. Disraeli VOL. C.

left it, since Count Cavour, the Sardinian Minister, had disputed the legality of the Neapolitan proceedings. Count Cavour must not be left to fight the battle by himself. He trusted that the whole of the papers would be laid before Parliament. Mr. Gladstone also pressed for the papers. He wanted more minute information before he blamed any Government. But he had seen with pain, astonishment, and shame, that the duty of vindicating the law of nations and the rights of Englishmen had fallen, even by accident, into the hands of the people of Sardinia. The House of Commons must be placed in full possession of the facts. Lord Palmerston said he had no objection to the production of the papers. For a long time the late Government believed the Cagliari had been captured within the jurisdiction of Naples. It at length turned out, from papers published in connection with the trial, that the capture took place beyond the Neapolitan jurisdiction. That materially altered the case; and when the late Government retired from office, the question was still under consideration. Mr. Seymour Fitzgerald, Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs, said the late Government knew in December the grounds of Count Cavour's claim, and they had arrived at the conclusion that even if the engineers had been captured on the high seas, they had no right to demand the liberation of the engineers until they had been tried. The present Government could not pursue a course different from that of their predecessors. Lord John Russell said that this was an unsatisfactory statement. If the Sardinian [F]

Government had made a just claim, they ought to be supported. But even if the engineers were legally captured, their treatment had been needlessly harsh, severe, and cruel, so that one had lost his health, the other his rea

son.

"The Chancellor of the Exchequer tells us to use amiable language' towards the Government of Naples. I have no confidence either in the justice of that Government towards these unfortunate men before trial, or in the court before which they are to be brought. I know it has not been unusual for the Neapolitan Government, for reasons of their own, to change the judges appointed to try prisoners either previously to the trial, or, it may be, during the course of trial; and I should not be surprised to hear, if the Neapolitan Government wish these men to be convicted, and the judges are not likely to convict them, that they had recourse to changing those judges for others more subservient. Whatever course the Government may pursue on this subject, and whatever this House may think it essential to do hereafter in reference to it, I am not ready to make the admission that we are to consider that everything that the Neapolitan Government has done has been according to justice, and that there is no need of enforcing on them the observance of those principles of equity on which other Governments act."

The discussion on the Cagliari affair here dropped, but the subject was more than once revived in the House of Commons; and we shall have occasion, in a succeeding chapter, to recur to it, and

to notice the satisfactory solution which it at last attained.

Mr. Bernal Osborne again attacked the Government, on the same evening, for their reticence as to their principles and intentions. He declared that the statement made by the noble Lord in "another place" was not at all satisfactory to the public mind; and he threatened the Ministers with a direct motion against them, which he should ask his friend Mr. M. Gibson, who was so skilled in amendments, to aid him in framing, unless Mr. Disraeli gave them a programme of the intended measures.

A few days afterwards, on the 16th March, Mr. Bernal Osborne proceeded, on the motion for going into Committee of Supply, to renew his attack on the Government. He charged them with pursuing an unparliamentary course in abstaining from an intelligible declaration of their principles and policy, adverting sarcastically to the expositions of that policy given in the House of Lords and upon the hustings. The Government, he observed, had come into office with an acknowledged minority, and they called for three things-for time, forbearance, and money. But before the House granted these three demands it was bound to ask what were their claims, and to inquire what their conduct had been. When in opposition they had resisted all the measures of the late Government, yet, when they got into their places, they ransacked the pigeon-holes of their predecessors. Mr. Osborne greatly amused the House by his exposure of the conflicting opinions held by the members of the pre