Lords Sitting of 7 June 1850

MINUTES,
PUBLIC BILLS.—1a Municipal Corporations (Ireland).
2a Railway Audit Bill (No. 2).
3a Naval Prize Balance; Administration of Criminal Justice Improvement.

MILITARY PENSIONS.
The DUKE of RICHMONDpresented a petition from certain outdoor pensioners of Chelsea Hospital, complaining of a clause
872
in the Act 9 and 10 Vict., passed in the year 1847, which prevented them, although they were worn out in the service, from receiving money due to them. The noble Duke said that he understood those deserving poor men were mistaken as to their claims.
EARL GREYthanked the noble Duke for giving him an opportunity of stating the facts of the case; for it was of the greatest importance, not only that the veterans of our Army should be properly rewarded by this great country, but that they should understand that they were treated with the greatest liberality. By an Act of George II., the out-pensioners formerly paid a poundage of 5 per cent for the payment of their pensions in advance. The present Secretary at War thought that such poundage bore very hardly upon them, and, by his advice, the Treasury brought in a Bill, which was passed in the year 1847, by which the payment of poundage was discontinued. A clause was introduced into the Bill to prevent its action being retrospective, and that was the clause of which the petitioners complained. The fact was that a great boon had been conferred upon the pensioners, by the abolition of the poundage from the date of the passing of the Act, and no less a sum than 50,000 l. per annum had been thereby secured to them. Some persons, however, had led them to believe that they had a right to get back the poundage paid previously to the passing of the Act, and it was for those arrears they were seeking. It should be understood that no claim for arrears could be sustained, the Act of 1847 not being retrospective in its operation.

THE CUBAN EXPEDITION.
LORD BROUGHAMsaid, that he had to put a question to the noble Marquess opposite upon a matter of very grave importance. Reports of an alarming nature had been circulated within the last few days—reports which he hoped might prove groundless—that an expedition, consisting of some 6,000 or 8,000 men, had sailed from the shores of the United States of America for the purpose of taking possession—forcible and armed possession—of the greatest of the West India Islands—the ancient Spanish colony of Cuba. He had no accounts of this expedition further than those which had appeared in the public prints, and they stated that it had actually said from New Orleans—
The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNE: And landed in Cuba.
LORD BROUGHAM: It had not only sailed, but actually landed in Cuba. Now, he had no idea whatsoever that such a proceeding would be assented to for a moment by the President or Government of the United States. Indeed, he believed that so far were they from consenting, that they had taken steps to prevent the sailing of this very armament upon a former occasion. But he understood now, and to his great sorrow, that these pirates had not only succeeded in getting away from the shores of America, but that they had actually escaped the Spanish fleet. That those execrable pirates, going piratically by sea to Cuba for purposes of invasion and robbery, as they had gone before to Mexico by land, had escaped from the Spanish fleet. He deeply regretted that they should have so escaped. But he hoped that they would yet meet with the condign punishment in Cuba which they so richly deserved. He trusted that his noble Friend would be able to give the House some information upon the subject, and to say whether any communication had passed between the American Government and our Minister at Washington, or the American Minister and our Government at home, with regard to it? And whether the Government of the United States, which was a respectable Government, and maintained, he believed, relations of peace and amity with foreign friendly nations, was endowed with sufficient strength and power to prevent its own subjects from fitting out and arming large expeditions for the avowed purpose of the invasion of unoffending peaceful foreign States?
The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNE: My Lords, I have only to say in answer to the question put by the noble Lord that I do not know that I can give him any further information than he possesses already upon the subject from the public prints, and which, I fear, is true—namely, that this piratical expedition—piratical in every sense of the word—was fitted out in America for the invasion of Cuba; but that it was fitted out, not only without the cognisance, but with the most entire disapprobation, and under the serious discouragement of the United States Government. If Her Majesty's Government had not fully believed, from the communications which it had received from the American Government, that such was the case, it would speedily have made known its sentiments
874
upon the subject in that quarter. We have heard from Washington that the object of the Government was to check this monstrous, unholy, and unjust piratical expedition; but information has since been received at New Orleans that it had landed at Cardenas, which town was then in its possession.
LORD BROUGHAM: My Lords, I am, I confess, disappointed. I should have hoped that something more than mere disapprobation would be expressed by the United States Government when speaking of the conduct of those detestable pirates; for, as my noble Friend has said, and I was glad to hear him use the designation, this expedition is piracy, and piracy of the very worst description. For ordinary piracy is confined to robbery and plunder upon a comparatively small scale; but this is carrying fire and sword with all the horrors of open war, for purposes of spoliation, into a peaceable country in alliance with America and with this country; or at all events, if not in actual alliance, certainly in peaceful relations of amicable intercourse.
The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNE: I believe I was understood to say, that the United States Government had not only looked upon this expedition with disapprobation, but that they had also taken steps to prevent its setting out, and had ordered their naval forces to intercept and break it up if possible.
LORD BROUGHAMsaid, that the addition now made by the noble Lord was more satisfactory. But he really could not understand how 6,000 or 8,000 men could be armed, trained, and sent off from a country without the knowledge of the Government.
The EARL of ABERDEEN: I have not the least doubt of the sincerity of the United States Government in expressing their disapprobation of the expedition against Cuba. But this, I must say, is a rather peculiar circumstance. It is supposed that we have a desire for the possession of this place. We ourselves have been strongly suspected of having some designs upon this island of Cuba; and I recollect myself having made a proposal 20 years ago (when they thought fit to suspect us of having unlawful designs upon the island), which I regret the United States did not assent to. It was the only thing which I think they could have done more than they now have to secure the independence of Cuba. The proposal was that the United

875
States and France should join with England to guarantee the possession of the island to Spain. The United States, however, did not think fit at the time to join with us in that guarantee. I hope that the forces in the island will be found sufficient, as I believe they will be, to give a good account of those buccaneers who have taken part in this expedition.
LORD BROUGHAM: As a lawyer I challenge contradiction to this proposition—That all civilised nations are bound to give help against pirates, who are the enemies of all men, wherever those pirates may be found; and that the commander of any British cruiser on the coast at the time would be guilty of neglect, and would be neglecting his duty, if he did not give his aid to the Spaniards against those pirates. This, I contend, is the law of nations.
LORD STANLEY: The proposition of my noble Friend touches the question which I was just about to put to the noble Marquess, and which was this. Can he give us no information as to the course about to be pursued by our Government with regard to this expedition? And, as it was known for some time that it was intended to send out such an expedition, what instructions have been given to our naval commander upon the West India station with regard to the proceedings he should adopt respecting it?
The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNE: I can distinctly state to the noble Lord that the matter has more than once formed the subject of communication between our Minister and the American Government; and I have, further, the satisfaction of assuring him that the American Government takes the same view of the matter that we do.
LORD STANLEY: The noble Marquess does not seem to have heard my question. I did not ask what the American Government had done, but what Her Majesty's Government have done. I asked whether any, and if any, what, instructions had been sent out to our Admiral commanding on the station in relation to this expedition?
The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNE: I am certainly not prepared to answer a question of that kind without notice having first been given of it.
LORD STANLEY: The noble Marquess, I am sure, will do me the justice to believe that I knew no more of this question coming forward than he did; but as the subject is brought forward, and as I imagine that the occupation of Cuba is not a sub-
876
ject that will be viewed with indifference by Her Majesty's Government, I should think that some instructions have been sent out to our Admiral on the station; and this House has a right to know whether that be so.
The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNE: All I think it necessary to say is this—that the subject has engaged the attention of Her Majesty's Government.
LORD STANLEY: Have any instructions at all been sent out?
EARL GREY: My Lords, it is contrary to all practice—contrary to the duties of Her Majesty's Government—to answer such a question. For my own part, I have to say decidedly, that I think it would be a breach of our duty if we were, in the present state of affairs, to give a direct answer to the questions which the noble Lord has put, and I feel rather surprised that the noble Lord, with his official experience, should persist in repeating it.
LORD STANLEY: The noble Earl thinks that it is the duty of Her Majesty's Government to refuse to give any information; but I say that it is the right and the duty of this House to ascertain whether the Government have performed their duty by taking any steps in a matter which deeply concerns the honour and the interests of this country. I say, for myself, that I have a right to ask—I have a right to have an answer—not as to the precise instructions that have been sent out, but whether Her Majesty's Government have thought this matter worth their attention, and whether any instructions have been sent out.
LORD BEAUMONThere arose, but was interrupted by Lord STANLEY; Lord BEAUMONT, however, persisted in his attempt to speak; on which—
LORD STANLEYsaid: My Lords, I put a question to Her Majesty's Government—it is for them to give an answer or not; but let them say whether they will give or withhold the information?
The MARQUESS of LANSDOWNE: The noble Lord must not consider himself the sole arbiter of the will of the House, or the sole depository of its dignity. Does the noble Lord mean to say that no other Peer is entitled to speak but himself? The noble Lord behind (Lord Beaumont) has a right not only to make such observations as he may choose, but also to ask a question as well as the noble Lord. He did not deny the right of the noble Lord to put this question; but he must,

877
on the other hand, allow him to exercise his discretion as to answering it or not.
LORD BEAUMONT: I must say that I am surprised at the tone adopted by the noble Lord opposite, not merely in his recent attempt to prevent me from making remarks as he has done on the duty of the Government, but also at his pressing his question upon Her Majesty's Government after the answer he has already received to the question which was originally put. My noble Friend made answer that the subject was under the consideration of the Government, and I maintain that, in the present position of affairs, any other answer than that would be indiscreet; and I rose, therefore, to urge upon my noble Friend not to allow any other answer to be given, because, with that answer, I maintain it is the duty of the House to be content in the present position of affairs.
LORD BROUGHAM: I am not aware that there was any necessity for the rebuke which the noble Lord opposite has just administered to my noble Friend near me; and I am sorry to see that he suffers so much under it; and further, I am not aware that the duty of this House is anything like the duty which my noble Friend opposite seems to think it is—the duty of stopping our inquiries or discussions because we are hound to rest satisfied with the answer of the Government. I, for one, am perfectly satisfied with it, because all the answer that has been given by those Members of the Government who are in the secret is, that there is no secret at all; in short, I think all that the Government has said amounts only to a roundabout and verbose manner of saying a very simple thing—that they know absolutely nothing whatever on the subject. But it is a subject on which they need have much delicacy. The law with respect to it is as plain as A B C—the expedition is a piratical expedition, and the men composing it are to be treated as pirates. That there are 8,000 of them does not make them less pirates than if there were two—rather, that there are 8,000 of them, only renders them more dangerous. We are all agreed as to the treatment of pirates—just as it is the duty of every person to seize a murderer, so it is the duty of every State to act against pirates. It was upon that assumption that the House approved of the conduct of Sir James Brooke in the Indian seas, where there were many hundreds of pirates, but their numbers did not make them the less pirates.
The EARL of ABERDEEN: There is one consideration which makes the question of my noble Friend perfectly natural in present circumstances. It will be in your Lordships' recollection, that during the whole preparation of this expedition we have been on no very friendly relations with the Spanish Government; and, therefore, it is very natural for him to inquire whether, not with regard to the affairs of Spain, but a regard to British interests, has led Her Majesty's Government so far as to take the proper steps to co-operate against this piratical expedition. If it could be supposed that our alienation and estrangement from the Spanish Government had rendered Her Majesty's Government lukewarm in exercising a duty of this sort, then a very grave responsibility will attach to Her Majesty's Government in consequence.
EARL GREY: I do not understand the noble and learned Lord representing this as a delicate question on this side of the House. Those who heard the observations of my noble Friend the President of the Council heard him condemn the proceedings of the expedition as strongly as did the noble and learned Lord himself; and he went further, and informed your Lordships that the expedition was equally condemned by the American Government. The expedition is undoubtedly of a piratical nature; but there is some difference between expecting Her Majesty's Government to state that they have had their attention called to the subject, and that they are watching the state of affairs in the West Indies—there is a difference between that, and at once answering the question whether any and what particular instructions have been given by Her Majesty's Government to the naval commander-in-chief as to his duty in respect of what was going on. Your Lordships must be perfectly aware that to answer this question at the present moment would obviously be attended with extreme inconvenience. It is not fitting, till accounts shall have been received from the West Indies, that Her Majesty's Government should give any information as to the instructions given to the naval commander on that station with respect to his interference or non-interference in the matter. There can be no doubt as to our right to check piracy, but it is a different question as to the manner in which we are to exercise that right.
Subject dropped.
House adjourned to Monday next.