Lords Sitting of 17 March 1854

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—2a Marine Mutiny; Exchequer Bills (£1,750,000).
Reported.—Coasting Trade.

THE ALLEGED BETRAYAL OF TRUST AT THE FOREIGN OFFICE.
THE EARL OF MALMESBURY: My Lords, it is with sincere regret that, in
876
pursuance of the notice which I have given for this evening—[To call the Attention of the House to the Charge made by the First Lord of the Treasury against a Gentleman, formerly a Clerk in the Foreign Office, for a Violation of his Duty in disclosing some Secret Correspondence of that Department], I have again to revert to a subject which has already twice occupied your attention. But, my Lords, I think that, in the few words which I shall consider it my duty to address to you, I shall persuade you that I have no other course to pursue, and that the interests of justice and fair play, as well as what is due to my own feelings, oblige me once more to call your attention to the charge which has been made against a young gentleman formerly a clerk in the Foreign Office, but who has now left that department. My Lords, when the noble Earl at the head of the Government first attempted to convey an impression to this House—an impression which I have no doubt existed upon his own mind—that possibly the information which the Times newspaper had published had been gathered either from the indiscreet conversation of this young gentleman, or from correspondence improperly divulged by him, your Lordships must have felt at the time considerable doubt as to the correctness of that insinuation—for the noble Earl has denied that it was a charge—or of that imputation. My Lords, I myself felt convinced it was not true for two reasons. In the first place, I knew from experience how strong the esprit de corps exists among the gentlemen who fill the situation of clerks in the Foreign Office, and how notorious, how remarkable, how universally known it is that, as I believe, in not one instance upon record has any important secret been betrayed by any one of that honourable body of gentlemen. So remarkable is this fact, that I believe within a very short period Her Majesty's Government have been applied to by a foreign Government, who requested to be informed by what system the English Government ensured such secrecy in their Foreign Office. My Lords, my second reason for believing that the noble Earl was deceived or mistaken, was the character of the young gentleman to whom he had alluded; and I believe the noble Lord opposite, the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, would be ready, if asked, to bear testimony to the propriety of the conduct of that young gentleman whilst he filled the situation of

877
clerk in the Foreign Office, and to the admirable and prudent manner in which he behaved himself in that department. My Lords, when, with these impressions on my mind, I addressed the noble Earl at the head of the Government the second time on Tuesday last on this subject, I trusted that the time which had elapsed since the charge had been first made by him, would have enabled him to ascertain that he was mistaken in the information he had received; but, my Lords, so far from having obtained what I had hoped I should find, an ample and immediate confession on the part of the noble Earl, that he had been so deceived and misinformed, the noble Earl reiterated his belief that this young gentleman had been guilty of great indiscretion, and although he did not repeat those harsh words, "scandalous betrayal of duty," which he had used upon the first occasion with regard to him, he did, in very plain language, reassert his belief that this young gentleman had been guilty of, at the least, very culpable indiscretion. My Lords, the noble Earl did more than that—he even challenged, in the speech which he made on Tuesday evening, this young gentleman to come forward and state that he was entirely innocent of the Misconduct imputed to him. Permit me, my Lords, for fear I should be incorrect in what I state, to read a few words of the statement which the noble Earl made upon that occasion. The noble Earl said:—
"What I had heard was this, and what I repeat is, that that gentleman did talk of this correspondence, and of his knowledge of the contents of this correspondence, which has been communicated to the Times. I am so certain of this, and, though he certainly did not mention it to me, I have heard it from so many different quarters, that I am quite satisfied to refer it to the gentleman himself. If he says that he did not mention the existence of this correspondence and the nature of this correspondence, then I Will confess that I have been more deceived than man ever was. But I refer it entirely to his own statement, and I am sure, because I have ascertained from quarters that I cannot possibly doubt, that it was mentioned with so little hesitation or concealment, that the gentleman himself will avow that he has referred to the correspondence in question. Now, I never stated that the Times newspaper received it from him; but, in the heat of the moment, and in reference to the insinuations of the noble Earl, I certainly did refer to a quarter from which it might possibly have come. What was stated in one society might very well be known in another; and, after all, the noble Earl (the Earl of Derby) stated last night that he was aware of the correspondence at the beginning of the Session. How did he learn it? Certainly not from me. But I may say that I think that it was an act of imprudence on the part of this gen-
878
tleman to talk in the way he did about the contents of this correspondence, which he certainly had cognisance of confidentially; but, after all, I made no charge, and, I repeat, that I believe the gentleman himself will not deny what I have stated."
My Lords, as far as I am concerned, I say that the emphasis with which the noble Earl reiterated his assertion and challenged the young gentleman to refute it, did not in the least degree shake my confidence in him, for the reasons which I have already stated to your Lordships. But, of course, I felt it my duty, after the debate was over, in case the young gentleman should not have seen what had taken place, or should not himself think of answering the speech of the noble Earl, to inform him that such a debate had taken place, and to refer him to the newspapers of Wednesday morning for a report of what had occurred. My Lords, the result of my letter to the young gentleman was the receipt yesterday of the following reply to it from him; and, my Lords, it is with the greatest pleasure that I find myself enabled to produce the document which I am about to read to your Lordships. The letter of the young gentleman is as follows:—
"March 16, 1854.
"MY LORD,—I was deeply concerned at seeing the charge that had been made against me in the House of Lords, on Monday night, by the Prime Minister, not only on my own account, but also because I saw your Lordship's name had been mentioned as the Minister who had given me my appointment in the Foreign Office.
"I hope that no one could for a moment suppose me to be unprincipled enough to make known any information I met with in despatches given me to copy; and, even did they entertain that opinion, the statement of the editor of the Times ought to clear me. In answer to Lord Aberdeen's charge against me; I beg to state that I have not the slightest recollection of having in any way, or at any time, divulged the secrets of the Foreign Office; and, therefore, I cannot in the least degree admit that I have scandalously betrayed my duty, in proof of which I must declare that, until I called at the Foreign Office to day, I had not the slightest idea of the nature of the papers I have been supposed to have divulged.
"I have the honour to be, my Lord,
"Your Lordship's humble servant,
"HUGH F. L. ASTLEY.
"The right hon. the Earl of Malmesbury."
Such, my Lords; is the simple but positive denial of this young gentleman to the grave charge which has been made against him; and, after that denial, considering it comes from a young man of ancient family, the son of a baronet, and from one who hitherto has certainly borne a high character in the office which he held—considering, too, that the noble Earl, perhaps carried away by

879
the heat of debate, forgot at the time the great disproportion of position between him and this young gentleman—I trust the noble Earl will frankly withdraw the charge which he has made, and express his regret for what has occurred. My Lords, the position of this young man at the present moment, and for several days past, has been a very cruel one. He is hardly, I believe, twenty-two years of age—he is just entering into the world—and he has been accused of an indiscreet, and, I may add, dishonourable action—by whom?—by the foremost person in this land next to the Throne. My Lords, consider what your own feelings would have been at his age had you been accused, by so high a personage, of such a fault. I think, my Lords, you will agree with me, and will have no doubt, as I have no doubt, that the noble Earl will at once rise in his place, and frankly confess that he has been misinformed in this matter, and that he regrets the pain which has been given to this young gentleman and his family.
THE EARL OF ABERDEEN: My Lords, when the noble Earl brought this matter before your Lordships on Tuesday last, I then declared I was perfectly willing to leave the issue of the question to the gentleman himself. My Lords, when I made that statement I had not the slightest belief that this gentleman would find it possible to deny the charge which had been made against him; but the letter which has been read by the noble Earl convinces me to the contrary, and I am bound at once not only to accept that denial, but at the same time to express my very sincere regret that I have been the means of casting any imputation upon the conduct or character of this gentleman. My Lords, I have only further to say, that I trust the House will believe, and that the noble Earl will believe, that I never would have made such a declaration without a moral conviction of the truth of what I stated. The letter, which I have now accepted at once and readily, whatever may be the proofs which I thought irrefragable, is to me quite sufficient, and therefore I do not cuter into the reasons which induced me to make the statement; but I trust the House will believe that I would not unadvisedly have spoken, or, at least, without such a knowledge of the facts as was conclusive to my mind. I hope your Lordships will agree with me that it is not at all necessary to produce the proofs which were given to me; but if the noble Earl
880
should entertain the slightest doubt of the satisfactory character of the grounds upon which I spoke, I am perfectly willing to put him in possession of all the facts which were communicated to me. My Lords, as this young gentleman, although no longer belonging to the Foreign Office, was once a member of that department, I will take this opportunity of referring to the Foreign Office and to the constitution of that department—for I think that no noble Lord in this House has the same right or the same means of speaking of that department as I have. My knowledge of that department, and my connection with it, commenced very many years ago. At different periods I have for several years been at the head of that department, and many of its members at the present moment were appointed by me. I have preserved a friendship with several of the persons composing that establishment, and I have never been backward in testifying my sincere regard for them, and my high opinion of their services. Indeed, my Lords, it is difficult for your Lordships to imagine the real merits which the members of that department possess. Their ability, their zeal, their industry, and their fidelity are all above praise. My Lords, I feel it my duty to express this opinion, formed from my long and intimate knowledge of the constitution of the Foreign Office and of the gentlemen who belong to it. I should consider it an act of great injustice if I were not to take this opportunity of expressing in the strongest terms this opinion; and further, my Lords, I will say that, whatever may be the reforms and improvements intended for the Civil Service, if every department of the State were constituted like the Foreign Office, I believe the warmest reformer would be damped in his ardour, and be content "to let well alone."
THE EARL OF DERBY: My Lords, the statement made by the gentleman whose letter has been just read, and the candid withdrawal which has been offered by the noble Earl of the imputation which could not but be supposed to be cast upon him by what fell from him upon a former occasion, must, I think, be as entirely satisfactory both to the feelings of that gentleman and to those of your Lordships as they are creditable to the noble Earl himself. I am sure that after what has taken place—after the offer of the noble Earl to communicate to my noble Friend the erroneous information, as it has turned out to be, upon which he was led to form so strong

881
an opinion upon the subject—my noble Friend can do nothing less or nothing snore than frankly to accept that offer of the noble Earl; and I confess it would be satisfactory now to know from what quarter information of the character of that which was given to the noble Earl—information which, as we have seen, led to a charge entirely without foundation—could have proceeded. My Lords, I believe that the panegyric which the noble Earl has just passed upon the Foreign Office is a well-deserved one. I believe there is no office in the State which is conducted not merely with greater zeal, but also with greater fidelity, with greater discretion, and with greater secrecy; and it is because I think so that I hope your Lordships will permit me, for a single moment, to refer once again to that which formed the subject of the discussion which led to this question. My Lords, I allude to that which in its results cannot but lead, in the public mind, to cast an undue and undeserved suspicion upon the fidelity of that department which has been the object of the noble Earl's very just panegyric. I mean, of course, the publication by a portion of the public press of Cabinet secrets, or what ought to have been Cabinet secrets, and which could only have been disclosed in two ways, either with the sanction of the Government themselves, or, if not with their sanction, then by one or other of the public servants, in violation of his duty. Now, my Lords, After the statement made by the noble Earl the other night, I cannot have a moment's hesitation in saying that I am perfectly satisfied that, from whatever quarter the Times newspaper may have derived the information which it published in its columns, and to which I took occasion to call the attention of your Lordships, it was communicated to that journal not only not by the noble Earl, but without his knowledge or sanction. I must say, further, that I do not in the slightest degree object to the principle, for public convenience and for public advantage, of Ministers, at any particular time at which they may think it convenient that information should be given at the earliest possible moment to the public, and especially when Parliament is not sitting—I do not, I say, object to the Ministers making use of the very admirable medium of the public press for the purpose of conveying that information to the public: therefore I beg to be understood that I do not at all complain of
882
Ministers making use of that mode of communication for the publication of matter which ought to be known to the public, and which would have been laid before Parliament if Parliament had been sitting at the time; but I do think there is growing up an evil which does require to be checked, and which may issue in very serious political consequences, and of which we have had proof upon more than one occasion lately; that somehow or other there are means in existence whereby more especially one particular newspaper can obtain possession of and circulate through the country documents of the most secret and confidential character. Now, my Lords, the noble Earl must forgive me for stating that neither he nor the other Members of the Government should be suprised if they find when the editor, or reputed editor, of that particular journal is on terms of intimacy and familiarity with more than one Member of the present Cabinet—and when they find that his visits to the neighbourhood of Downing Street are neither few nor far between—if they find—what is very generally believed, and what I do not think will be denied—that more than one, two, or three gentlemen in official situations, and connected with public offices, are in the habit of communicating to that journal—under such circumstances, I say, it should not be a matter of surprise to the noble Earl if the public entertain the opinion—perhaps the unjust opinion—that some of the disclosures which have taken place have been made, if not with the concurrence, at least in consequence of some imprudence and indiscretion on the part of high officials in the public service. I will not refer again to the case upon which I felt it to be my duty to address some observations to your Lordships a few evenings ago; but I will allude shortly to an instance of the publication of recent documents, in which it appeared to me perfectly certain the Government had no participation, but which I believe, on the contrary, met with their strong reprobation, and which affords a striking example of the injury and mischief that may be done to the public service by the appearance of unauthorised communications in the public journals. I allude to the knowledge given to the public of the ultimatum which was sent from this country to Russia only a very few days ago—a knowledge of which, so far as the Members of the Government are concerned, I believed was confined exclusively to the Cabinet—with regard to

883
which, if I am not misinformed, extraordinary precautions were taken to ensure secrecy; but which, notwithstanding, on the next morning but one following the meeting of the Cabinet at which it was decided upon, appeared in extenso in the columns of the Times; and in consequence of the courier who was sent to Russia with that important message, bearing upon the great question of peace and war, having been detained upon his journey by other political combinations and negotiations which were going on, the first intelligence which the Emperor of Russia would receive of the English ultimatum, the result of the rejection of which would be a declaration of war, would be not through any official document, but through the columns of the Times newspaper published two days after the decision of the Cabinet. Now, my Lords, I altogether acquit every Member of the Government of having had the slightest participation in this gross violation of public duty; but I do say that this is a subject which deserves, and which must receive, the serious attention of the Government; and if the Government be not sufficient, then the attention of Parliament itself. Your Lordships will probably have read the article which appeared in the Times newspaper the other day, after the debate that took place in this House, in which the writers of that journal took a very high view of their position, of their rights, and of their duties, and treated with the utmost contempt the notion that in their position it was possible they could condescend to receive information from any subordinate Member of the Government. Now, my Lords, I say, considering the tone of that declaration, how is it possible that any honourable man, editing a public paper of such circulation as the Times, can reconcile to his conscience the act of having made public that which he must have known was intended to be a secret—a Cabinet secret—and by what means could he have obtained possession of that secret, except either by the connivance and concurrence of an important Member of Her Majesty's Government, which I altogether repudiate, or else by some unworthy bargain with some person under the Government, or in their confidence—which confidence was scandalously betrayed? My Lords, I have thought it right to take this opportunity of again calling the attention of your Lordships to the important, subject which led to this discussion, which I hope has now termi-
884
nated, for the purpose of saying that, if Her Majesty's Government, willing as they must be, are unable to put a stop to this course of proceeding, then it is time for this House to interpose with the weight of its authority, and to take steps by the whole weight and power of its authority, not only for discovering and exposing, but for punishing, the delinquent who is guilty of so gross a violation of public duty as that which enables any newspaper to avail itself of such information for the purpose of betraying secrets which it is essential and important to the country should be concealed. And, my Lords, I shall only add that upon the next occasion when the Times, or any other newspaper, shall be guilty of such a breach of what I conceive to be their public duty, if no other Member of this House takes the matter up, I will myself take the question in hand, will bring it before your Lordships, and will endeavour to extract from the parties themselves—I repeat, from the parties themselves—the mode in which they obtain possession of such information.
THE EARL OF MALMESBURY: My Lords, after what the noble Earl at the head of the Government has stated with respect to the subject I brought before your Lordships, I have only to say that Mr. Astley and his family will receive with sincere satisfaction the withdrawal of the charge which was made against him, as well as the expression of the noble Earl's regret at his having made that charge. My Lords, I will only make one or two observations with reference to what has just fallen from my noble Friend. From my own experience I am aware that Cabinet secrets have transpired, and have become known to the public, but they always related to matters of communication between two parties, and the secret being known to two parties, it was possible for it to be divulged by either of them; and, I am sorry to say, whatever may be my opinion as to our own Foreign Office, that Foreign Offices abroad are not to be relied upon for secrecy in all cases, for I have myself known secrets most shamefully brought before the public by means of the faithlessness of foreign officials. In the present case, however, it is clear that the secret could not have been betrayed abroad, but must have been divulged in this country, because the knowledge of the ultimatum did not extend beyond the Members of the Cabinet and some persons employed by the Government. More than that, the fact

885
that the Times newspaper published the information only two days after the meeting of the Cabinet is an additional proof that the person who violated his duty must have been a person connected, somehow or other, with the Government, and whom, therefore, the Government were bound to discover and expose. Now, my Lords, I do not believe it is possible that any Member of the Cabinet would be guilty of the indiscretion of allowing anything that passed within the Cabinet to be publicly known; but, at the same time, I trust that, if a repetition of any of these improper proceedings should occur, the noble Earl, whose duty it will be to discover who the culprit is, will not rashly lay the blame upon the youngest and most insignificant member of the department, but will remember the answer given by Sancho Panza to his master, Don Quixote, upon an occasion when accused of an indiscretion, "Your worship will recollect that a cask may leak at the top, just as well as at the bottom."

LAW OF PRIZE—BRITISH GOODS IN NEUTRALS.
THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDE, in moving that an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty for Copies of the late Correspondence between Her Majesty's Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs and Her Majesty's Consul at Riga, regarding the Export of the Produce of Russia belonging to Her Majesty's Subjects, and to the Rights of Neutrals in the Event of War, said, he wished to call the attention of their Lordships to the following despatch, dated Feb. 16, written by the Under Secretary of State to the English Consul at Riga:—
"The Earl of Clarendon has had under his consideration your despatch requesting to be informed what respect would be paid by British cruisers in the event of war to bonâ fide British property, the produce of Russia, if shipped on board neutral vessels. I am to acquaint you in reply that property of the description in question, the produce of Russia, and exported therefrom, by and on account of a British merchant domiciled and trading there, although purchased before the war, and exported to England, would not be respected by Her Majesty's cruisers unless in pursuance of a licence, or of some special instructions from Her Majesty to the officers of the Navy. By the law and practice of nations a belligerent has a right to consider as enemies all persons who reside in a hostile country, or who maintain commercial establishments therein, whether such persons be by birth neutrals, allies, enemies, or fellow-subjects; the property of such persons exported from such country is therefore res hostium, and as such lawful prize of war. Such property will be condemned as prize, although its owner may be a native-born subject of the cap-
886
tor's country, and although it may be in transitu to that country; and its being laden on board a neutral ship will not protect the property. You will, therefore, inform those whom it may concern that in the event of war the property in question will not be protected by the consular certificate, or by any other document, but will be liable to capture and condemnation as prize."
He did not in the slightest degree call in question the accuracy of the law as laid down in that communication by the noble Earl, nor had he the least doubt that, before sanctioning that declaration of the law with the authority of his office, the noble Earl took good care to have recourse to the best legal advice upon this subject; but he (the Marquess of Clanricarde) thought there was something in the tone of the despatch in question, and in the way in which a grave subject like this was incidentally treated by it, which was not satisfactory. [The noble Marquess here referred, in a tone which was almost inaudible, to a letter written by the noble Earl the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to Her Majesty's Consul at Riga, and was understood to deprecate the indistinct and abrupt terms in which it was couched. The noble Marquess referred to the disagreeable duties which devolved on our diplomatic agents abroad in their endeavours to settle the disputes into which British merchants resident abroad frequently got into with the local authorities in respect of their persons and goods, and appeared to infer that the letter of the noble Earl was calculated to embarrass the Consul at Riga.] He wished to ask the noble Earl whether the document he had read was to be taken as the positive decision of the Government as to the mode in which the property in question was to be treated during the war? He would remind their Lordships that British merchants, in their commercial transactions with Russia, must have made engagements in the autumn of each year, and made advances on their purchases, in order to enable the Russian merchant and producer to bring down their goods to the seaboard in the middle of winter, so that the goods thus purchased and paid for might be regarded as British quite as much as those that were bonded on the banks of the Thames. The detention at Riga was therefore so much clear loss to Great Britain and so much gain to Russia. There was another matter—the rights of neutrals in the event of war—upon which he presumed it was not intended that the despatch in question should be taken as pronouncing the opinion of the Go-

887
vernment. So grave a subject as that, and one which had led to so much controversy, he thought ought not to be discussed in that sort of incidental correspondence. Again, if we were to treat the property in question in the way indicated in this letter, our conduct unfortunately in that case presented a disadvantageous contrast with that of the Emperor of Russia with regard to our own fellow-subjects. Their Lordships would remember that in the autumn of last year the highly respectable body of British merchants, living at St. Petersburg, having taken alarm at the aspect of political affairs, were quieted by our Government by the assurance that the dangers then apprehended would all be ended by negotiation, and they had the further assurance which was made in the Speech from the Throne at the conclusion of the Session; and, later, upon hostilities becoming more probable, the Emperor of Russia gave them an assurance, conveyed to them by the highest authority, that, come what might, their persons and their property should be safe. That was a wise and politic declaration; and, in addition to its being wise and politic, it was an honourable and generous treatment of those persons. There was another point—the conduct of the German Powers. Their Lordships had heard a good deal of blame thrown upon Prussia for the attitude she had assumed in the present crisis; but he thought Prussia was only pursuing her own interests, well understood, in the course she had taken. It was felt in Prussia, as everywhere else, that the balance of power ought to be maintained, and that it was desirable to preserve the peace of Europe. But the war having become apparently inevitable, at this moment it was impossible that Prussia could fail to see the advantage to her own interests of driving a good transit trade with Russian produce and trade. Prussia having abolished the duties on imports into her territory by land, the consequence of our severity towards our merchants in that country would be, that we should not only injure so much British property for the benefit of Russia, but we should also advance Prussian interests by forcing imports into Russia by way of the land instead of the sea. It might so happen that a neutral vessel might at this moment be loading at Odessa with a cargo for a British merchant; and if a declaration of war should be made in a few days, that vessel might be seized in the Channel,
888
although, as a neutral vessel, she would not be prevented leaving the port. There might be a necessity to be very severe in carrying out the maxims of war, in order that war might not be of long duration; but, on the other hand, it was wise not to interfere with peaceful and useful pursuits when that could be avoided. The noble Marquess then read the following letter, published in this day's Times, from Sir J. Emerson Tennent, dated from the office of Committee of Privy Council for Trade, on the 14th instant, and addressed to a mercantile house in the City by the Board of Trade:—
"Office of Committee of Privy Council for Trade, Whitehall, March 14, 1854.
"Gentlemen:—In reply to your letter of the 24th of February, requesting to be informed whether, in the event of war between this country and Russia, Russian goods imported from neutral ports would be considered contraband, or would be admissible into England? I am directed by the Lords of the Committee of Privy Council for Trade to inform you that, in the event of war, every indirect attempt to carry on trade with the enemy's country will be illegal; but, on the other hand, bonâ-fide trade, not subject to the objections above stated, will not become illegal merely because the articles which form the subject-matter of that trade were originally produced in an enemy's country.
"I am, gentlemen, your obedient servant,
"J. EMERSON TENNENT.
"Messrs. Martin, Lewin, and Adler."
According to that letter, it would seem that a direct trade with the enemy's country would be legal; but that, of course, could not be meant; and though he had a suspicion of what was really intended to be understood, he thought it desirable that the point should receive some explanation from a Member of the Government. He admitted that in many cases it would be sound policy and humanity to be very severe in carrying on a war, in order that that war might not be of long duration; but, on the other hand, he thought it was one of the highest indications of the wisdom of a Government to avoid interfering, as far as they could, with the peaceful and useful pursuits of commerce. The noble Marquess concluded by moving for the production of the correspondence in question.
THE EARL OF CLARENDON; My Lords, with respect to the letter to which my noble Friend has alluded, and which I had not seen before, it appears to me that, although there may be some indistinctness in its wording, there can be no doubt as to the meaning to be attached to its contents. It meant to state that, in the event of war, all trading, direct or indirect, with

889
the enemy's country would be illegal; but that, on the other hand, trading in articles, the produce of that country, coming through a neutral port, and in the way of bonâ fide trade—that is, in property not belonging to the subjects of the belligerent Power, will not be illegal, from the mere fact that the articles forming the subject-matter of that trade were originally the produce of an enemy's country. This is the meaning I attach to the letter to which the noble Marquess has referred, and this is, I consider, the fair construction to be put upon it. With respect to my letter to Her Majesty's Consul at Riga, I should be very sorry that it should appear to have been written with any unnecessary curtness or severity, or that it should in any way inflict pain on the British merchants resident in Russia, and I can truly state that such was not my intention. I, like my noble Friend, have resided for some time at St. Petersburg, and I feel bound to bear witness to the honourable conduct and bearing of the British subjects resident there; and, although I am ready to agree with the noble Marquess as to the many disagreeable calls we have made upon us relative to the persons and property of British subjects resident in the country to which our Embassies may be attached, yet, with reference to the British residents at St. Petersburg, as far as my experience goes, I must say that I never had the slightest trouble or annoyance with them—they always managed to settle among themselves any disputes they might have. The letter of which I am now speaking became necessary in consequence of certain communications which had been made by a gentleman resident in Russia to the consular authorities at Riga. This gentleman, who was a merchant at Riga, declared his intention of not quitting Russia, but, on the contrary, of remaining a resident there; and he wrote and asked whether he might export Russian goods from Russian ports with safety. The subject was referred to me about a month ago, and I immediately took advantage of all the means at my command to ascertain what the law really was with reference to it; and, having ascertained it, I stated it as clearly and as concisely as I could in my despatch to the Consul at Riga. In such despatch I explained to him that, by the law and practice of nations, a belligerent has a right to consider as enemies all persons who reside in a hostile country, or who maintain commercial establishments therein, whether
890
such persons are by birth neutrals, allies, enemies, or fellow-subjects; that the property of such persons exported from such country is res hostium, and, as such, is looked upon as lawful prize of war. Such property, I said, would, in fact, be condemned as prize, although its owner might be a native-born subject of the captor's country, and although it might be in transitu to that country; and the fact of its being laden on board a neutral ship would not protect it. I am exceedingly sorry that the language of the law should be considered to be unnecessarily curt or severe upon this question; but, in writing the despatch to which the noble Marquess has called attention, it was not my duty to alter the words in order to make the opinion of the law officers more bland, or to indulge in any comments as to the severity of the law, but merely to state clearly, distinctly, and explicitly what the law really was. I only wanted to inform him of the truth, what the law was, and what he would expose himself to if he did what he had announced it was his intention to do. I certainly did allude to licences and facilities that might be given; but, without knowing miter what circumstances he was going to export his produce, and, in fact, knowing none of the particulars of the case, I thought was going to the utmost extent allowable, without leading him into error, when I adverted to such facilities, and informed him of the state of the law, leaving him to decide for himself. During the last few days I have received at the Foreign Office very numerous applications indeed on the important subject to which the noble Marquess has referred, many of them requesting information on points of law, others with regard to the safety of transactions in which they are engaged, and others regarding the use of the Russian flag in consequence of the dearth of shipping experienced this year, and many others putting a string of hypothetical cases which it would require no common ingenuity to unravel. I consider it to be no part of my duty to give answers to a great many of these questions that have been put to me; but still I have no wish to make use of official reserve, and, therefore, I have endeavoured to give all the information in my power; but your Lordships will understand that great caution is necessary in doing so, from the fear, in the first place, of leading parties into errors which might have led to their injury; and, secondly, not to commit the Government

891
to courses which may involve great responsibility. With respect to the intentions of Her Majesty's Government, it has been impossible hitherto—though I need hardly tell you that there is every desire on the part of the Government to give all the protection possible to British commerce and British property—it has not been possible hitherto to determine on what principle the dispensing power of the Crown will be exercised—whether licences or Orders in Council shall be resorted to—till we know all the particular cases and the infinite variations which distinguish them. There is also this point to be borne in mind—that we are, for the first time, engaged in a war with a naval ally, and, therefore, it is our duty to be very clear as to the principles we are about to adopt, and the departure which we shall sanction from our former law and practice, as well as the bonâ-fide character of every transaction, before we can call on the French Government to adopt those principles, and to protect British commerce and property in a way that the French might not, in ordinary circumstances, see to be right. A great variety of cases has now been brought under the consideration of Her Majesty's Government, and I think we are now very nearly in a position to determine what rule of conduct to adopt and what facilities to afford. But I should be sorry to enter into any particulars on this subject, and my noble Friend has given a very good reason why, when he stated that the accounts which have appeared in two papers are entirely at variance with each other; but I think we are nearly in a position to determine the principle on which we will allow licences; and I, therefore, only say at the present time, in answer to the observations with which my noble Friend concluded his speech, that, in so far as concerns protection to British subjects and commerce, it is the determination of Her Majesty's Government to act with the utmost liberality consistent with the rights of belligerents. With respect to the rights of neutrals, and with respect to letters of marque, I trust we are about to set an example of liberality by which we shall be able to show that, as far as it is in our power, it is our intention to mitigate the calamities of war, and to act in a manner that shall be consistent with the humanity and civilisation of the age. I have only to say, further, that it is of great importance that our own country and foreign nations should be apprised at as
892
early a period as possible of the course which the Government intend to pursue, and I hope, therefore, in a few days to be able to lay the correspondence applicable to this subject on your Lordships' table.
On Question, agreed to.
House adjourned to Monday next.