§ VISCOUNT PALMERSTONSir, before the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer answers the questions which have been put to him, I should wish, in the first place, to say a few words as to what fell from my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Westminster (Sir De Lacy Evans) concerning the transport of troops to the East Indies. In my opinion, if you send anything more than small bodies of men to India, I think it is far better to send them by sea than on the overland route across Egypt. It is not a matter of sound policy that this country should make her military communication with India dependent upon a passage through a territory belonging to another Power. I think it is far better to keep the means of communication in your own hands so as to be able to send troops when you like, and as you like. It has been stated by the noble Lord that a Commission has been appointed to consider the best method of reorganizing the Native army of India. That course I do not presume to criticise. I do not condemn the reasons which have led the Government to appoint such Commission in England; but certainly the late Government thought that that inquiry could be best and most usefully conducted in India by military men who had recent experience of the value on the one hand, and on the other of the dangers of the peculiar component parts, of the local Native forces. It may be that the continuation of hostilities in India has 2044 led to the dispersion of military men whose judgment would be of importance in such an inquiry—men whom it would be difficult to assemble at present, or even at an early period; but this, at all events, must be clear to the House, that if the Commission consist of men in this country,—not even the future members of the new Indian Council—can be equally competent to give a sound opinion as to the best method of composing and reorganizing the Indian local army as those persons who have mixed in recent transactions in that country—who know the tendencies of the army, the difference of races, the influence of castes, and in what manner, with the greatest safety to the public interests, such an army can be composed. The noble Lord said that he did not intend to make any general statement this Session upon Indian affairs, but that he was willing to answer any questions on particular points. The noble Lord forgot to answer one or two points to which my right hon. Friend (Mr. Vernon Smith) directed his attention. My right hon. Friend asked him, especially with regard to the Indian loan, whether the amount which has been authorized by Parliament will be sufficient for the service of the Indian Government until the beginning of next year? I think when the noble Lord looks back to see what were the questions put to him by my right hon. Friend he will think that, without entering into any general statement of Indian affairs, he might be able to give an answer to some of those questions on Monday next. I must say the statements which have been made by the hon. Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, in regard to the question put to him by my hon. Friend the Member for Louth (Mr. C. Fortescue), were to me anything but satisfactory. I think my hon. Friend the Member for Louth was perfectly justified, in the present state of things, in not allowing the Session to close without asking some definite information from the Government upon the point to which he directed the attention of the House. I wish the House to remember a little the state of this matter. Unfortunately there have been differences between this Government and the Government of the United States in regard to transactions in the waters of Cuba. The Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs told us two months ago that certain concessions had been made to the British Government. The public has since then been informed by the Minister of the Uni- 2045 ted States, who stated with great parade, and in a manner which his assembled fellow countrymen received with shouts of triumph, that great concessions had been made by this Government to the Government of the United States—that this Government had abandoned some rights, or pretended rights, for which preceding Governments of England had always contended. Of course I am quite ready to admit—and no man has more urgently asserted the doctrine than I have—that it is inexpedient to make inquiries pending negotiations; and therefore my hon. Friend the Member for Louth was right in saying that he did not propose to ask what was the nature of the convention which we propose to the United States. I thought with him, from what fell from the hon. Under Secretary on a former occasion, that some proposal had been made to the United States. It appears now that none has yet been made, though it is a matter of great public interest and some urgent importance, and I quite agree with my hon. Friend that he was quite right in not asking the Government to state in any degree what was the nature of the proposal that was made. But although this House properly abstains from making inquiries with regard to pending negotiations, I think it is right that it should be informed as to completed facts; and if I am to judge by the statement reported to have been made by the Minister of the United States, there is some completed transaction between the two Governments in regard to our maritime rights, real or pretended. Now, what I wish the right hon. Gentleman to state is simply this—Is it that we have given up a pretension which we never made—that we have disclaimed a right which the Americans thought we pretended to, but which former Governments of this country never asserted? Is that the nature of the transaction which has taken place, or is it that we have abandoned a right which former Governments have claimed and insisted upon? In the one case, I ask the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer to state, if we have given up any pretension to the American Government, what that pretension is? On the other hand, if a right which we formerly claimed and insisted on has been abandoned, I wish to know what that right is which has been so conceded I think that is a perfectly fair question, it has no reference 2046 to anything at present in a state of negotiation, for the statement of the American Minister was that the matter was complete. As no doubt, according to their system of government, every person in the United States is by this time made aware of what the transaction is, I think this House and the people of this country naturally interested in our maritime prosperity have a right to be put on an equal footing with the people of the United States. I therefore hope the right hon. Gentleman will explain what the pretension or the right we have abandoned is.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER—Sir, it is not for me to inform the House what may have been the pretensions advanced by the late Government. All I can any is, that when this misunderstanding—I cannot call it an interruption of friendly relations—took place in consequence of what had occurred in the waters of Cuba, several controverted points were brought into discussion between the two Governments. We consulted the law officers of the Crown, and upon their opinion of the legality or illegality of our conduct we acted. The communications which took place between the two Governments in consequence were of a friendly nature; but the result was that all claims were left in abeyance. Nothing has been decided upon beyond that settlement which may be described as in a state of abeyance, during which the Government of the United States, having made to us a friendly overture that we should offer to them a plan for their consideration which should accomplish the object that both Governments have in view—namely, to put down as much as they possibly can, the Slave Trade, without producing those misunderstandings which have occurred, WO accepted the offer, and we have under our consideration a plan which we think will be satisfactory to both countries. That plan will be shortly submitted to the Government of the United States, and we have sanguine expectations that it will meet the wishes and necessities of both parties, prevent in future the repetition of misunderstandings between the two countries, and at the same time obtain that which the Government of this country sincerely desire, and which we believe the Government of the United States also desire—namely, the discouragement of the Slave Trade. In reply to the right hon. Member fur Bute (Mr. Stuart Wortley), he did not think it likely that the discussion 2047 on the Wellington monument would take place on Monday, but thought it might come on on Tuesday or Wednesday.
§ MR. G. A. HAMILTONsaid, since the Motion for the adjournment of the House at its rising until Monday had been made he had found it necessary that the House should meet to-morrow (this day), for the purpose of advancing certain Bills a stage; and he begged, therefore, to withdraw the Motion for the adjournment until Monday.
§ Motion, by leave, withdrawn.