Lords Sitting of 27 April 1855

MINUTE.
Sat First in Parliament.—The Earl Stanhope, after the Death of his Father.

DISCIPLINE OF THE ARMY.
THE EARL OF SHAFTESBURYsaid, he had a question to put to his noble and gallant Friend the Commander in Chief relative to certain occurrences which were stated by the newspapers to have taken place in the army. Their Lordships no doubt remembered the case of Lieutenant Perry, and he was sure they would be sorry to find that the practices which were then so justly reprehended were still continued. There appeared in the London journals of Wednesday a statement, copied from the provincial papers, giving an account of what was alleged to have occurred in the barracks of Canterbury. He knew nothing whatever of this matter except from what he had read in the journals. There were two cases mentioned. One was between Ensigns Sanders and Neville, of the 30th Regiment, and Ensign Falk-
1832
ner, of the same regiment. In that case his noble and gallant Friend had given judgment, and therefore he would not detain the House by any remark upon it, except to say that he did not think that his noble and gallant Friend had erred on the side of severity. It was impossible to read the paper of instructions to officers on joining their regiments or depôts without being struck with the good sense and propriety which characterised them, and there could be no question that the discipline and conduct of the army would be well maintained if the young men and their commanding officers acted up to the instructions therein contained. He (the Earl of Shaftesbury) did not pretend to understand the discipline of the army, but he must say that the persons who appeared to him to be principally in fault in these cases were the commanding officers. He could not think that such a state of things as had been revealed in these instances could exist if the commanding officers did their duty as gentlemen and Christians, with these instructions for their guide. The other case, to which he now wished more particularly to refer, occurred at Canterbury. It appeared that Cornet Baumgarten entered his regiment, the Enniskillens, and was for a long time subjected to the most disgusting, insulting, and provoking tricks. He was in consequence betrayed into the great folly of sending a challenge to one of his tormentors. This step was of course contrary to the civil law of the land, and directly against the articles of war. It appeared that a sergeant of the regiment, who understood his duty both as a civilian and a soldier better than those in command, Sergeant Brodie, interfered to prevent this breach of the peace. And who did their Lordships think was the person who opposed him, and insisted on the duel going on? Their Lordships would scarcely believe that it was the adjutant of the regiment. He (the Earl of Shaftesbury) was stating the facts as represented by the sergeant. Well, he who, if he did his duty, should show a good example to the regiment, the superior officer, was the man who interfered to prevent the laudable attempt of the sergeant. He wished most sincerely that it was possible to make the sergeant and the adjutant change places; for the one had outstepped all bounds of reason and discipline, while the other had shown himself a good citizen and a good soldier. This adjutant who should have been the first to prevent a duel, actually

1833
ordered his men to knock down this sergeant with the butt-ends of their carbines. That was the statement in the papers. He wished to ask his noble and gallant Friend if he had instituted any inquiry into this transaction; and if so, whether he would make known to the public what his decision was? He had no doubt his noble and gallant Friend's decision would be in accordance with justice, with the requirements of the case, and with due regard to the discipline of the army.
VISCOUNT HARDINGEsaid, he was not prepared to say that the noble Earl had not stated the case according to the facts. He was sorry to say that a system of practical jokes was carried to a great extent in the army, and had prevailed for a considerable time. He had taken strong measures to put it down. He had tried courts-martial, and he had admonished, and had cashiered; but these measures were not effectual. Without pledging himself to any course in the present case until he should have read the evidence, if he thought that admonitions were not sufficient, he would not hesitate to advise Her Majesty to adopt some speedier and more efficacious modes of dealing with these occurrences than at present existed.
THE EARL OF HARDWICKEthought that the public opinion on the subject of duelling was in the right direction; but there could be no doubt that the result at the same time had been to loosen those bonds which formerly subsisted between gentlemen. He expressed no opinion whatever on the subject of duelling, and he was quite ready to acquiesce in the feeling that prevailed; but it was clear that since the practice had been discontinued, there had not been that stringent determination on the part of the military authorities to suppress ungentlemanly conduct which there ought to have been. In the performance of his duty as the captain of one of Her Majesty's ships, he had never had the slightest difficulty whatever in putting down, by an immediate interference, the least attempt either at bullying or ungentlemanly conduct. He had heard stories with reference to the conduct of officers of regiments in London, and even of those regiments which were employed about the person of the sovereign, which had really astonished him. For his own part, if he were Commander in Chief, he would hold the colonel of every regiment immediately responsible, and he would deal with him,
1834
rather than with the criminal himself, in the most summary manner.
LORD VIVIAN: It is only right to remind the noble Earl that the colonel of the regiment now in question is in the Crimea.
THE EARL OF HARDWICKE: Of course I meant to say the colonel or the officer in command.

CHURCH-RATES—PETITIONS.
THE BISHOP OF EXETER, in presenting two petitions on the subject of church-rates, said, that the petitioners were the advocates for peace upon this question, provided that the real interests of the Church were not sacrificed or the churches themselves injured. One of those petitions was signed by a number of the most respectable inhabitants of the city of Exeter, and he must say in that petition the question was excellently argued. In pursuance of the notice he had given, he would take the present opportunity of inviting their Lordships' attention to the existing state of the law upon this subject. It was one of no small importance, and at this moment one of no ordinary interest; for in a few days it was likely a step would be taken in another place in relation to this matter of great moment to the Church; and he must say from what had occurred there were some persons required to be enlightened on what the state of the law now was. He considered that the declaration recently made by the First Minister of the Crown upon this subject was one for which all churchmen and the country generally were deeply indebted, for Lord Palmerston was said to have expressed himself, upon the Motion of Sir W. Clay for leave to bring in a Bill for the abolition of church-rates, in these terms—
"If the law were that a compulsory power existed, requiring every parish to levy a rate, then I agree that that would be the best mode of providing for the fabric of the Church." [3 Hansard, p. 1368].
That was a most gratifying and encouraging declaration, and he sincerely thanked the noble Lord for it, and doubted not that his colleagues were prepared to assist him in carrying it into effect. But the noble Lord added something which was not so encouraging, but which in his (the Bishop of Exeter's) opinion did not affect the force of what he had previously said, for he believed the noble Lord in that portion of his statement spoke under an entire misconception of the law. He stated that

1835
those hon. Gentlemen who were opposed to the maintenance of church-rates as part of the law of the land appeared to forget that, by a recent decision—no doubt alluding to the recent decision in the Braintree case—there was no power to enforce that law. He (the Bishop of Exeter) was prepared to prove that that decision left the law respecting church-rates exactly as it found it, and that it only stated that the particular mode adopted in that case of giving effect to the law was wrong, and that the churchwardens were entirely under a misapprehension as to the course it was their duty to pursue. He had ventured, a few days ago, to appeal to the noble and learned Lord on the woolsack, whether that was not the condition in which that decision left the law, and that noble and learned Lord said it was. The noble and learned Lord, however, did not stop there, but, giving the great weight of his official position to his opinion, he stated that the law respecting church-rates was absolutely effete, that there was no power of enforcing them, and that they must be content to look upon church-rates as a bygone institution. The noble and learned Lord had remarked that—
"The right rev. Prelate was quite correct, and, no doubt, it was still the duty of the vestries to keep the churches in repair, and supply the articles necessary for Divine service; but the difficulty was as to the means of enforcing the duty. In ancient times it was excommunication or interdict; but the very mention of these would be considered trifling, as they had been disused since the Reformation; and although it was one of the matters referred to Archbishop Cranmer, at that era to provide a substitute for the ancient remedy of excommunication, it was not done. Notwithstanding, therefore, that old legal maxim, 'ubi jus ibi remedium,' there really was no remedium for the enforcement of the duty of the vestry to raise a rate for the repair of a church. A rate made by a minority at the vestry was held invalid by the House of Lords. When, therefore, it was said that it was the duty of the vestry to make a rate when necessary, it must be borne it mind that, practically, there was no means of enforcing the duty; still, however, it remained."—[See 3 Hansard, p. 1500].
Now, he (the Bishop of Exeter) thought his noble and learned Friend had not given due consideration to the matter when he uttered that opinion; for it was plain that those persons who were opposed to the exercise of the right of levying a rate for churches considered the existing state of the law to be a very serious one, and Mr. Courtauld, in his evidence, made the following statement—
1836
"I do not mean to say that in the present state of the law it is not competent for a church-rate to be enforced, even in such a parish as Braintree, where the dissentients are a large majority, because I have always felt thoroughly satisfied that there was a power in the ecclesiastical tribunals to punish by unlimited imprisonment—that is to say, by imprisonment until repentance and submission—all parties who, being called upon to join in making a church-rate, refused to attend a vestry meeting, and so to join in it, and we, in Braintree, are seriously apprehensive that such a power will be resorted to. That apprehension rests, in the first place, upon certain very significant passages in the judgment of Mr. Baron Parke."
After that evidence could it be said that the law was a dead letter; and that if it were put in motion it would not prove effectual? In the Exchequer Chamber in Hilary Term, 1850, Mr. Baron Rolfe (the noble and learned Lord now on the woolsack), in the case of "Gosling v. Veley," maintained this doctrine, that under the existing law all parties in the parish might be punished indiscriminately for contumacy in neglecting to make a rate, and that the palliation of a doctrine apparently so unjust was, that the churchwardens should take care that the punishment should fall on the obstinate parishioners only. If excommunication, however, were the punishment to be inflicted, he could not see how a distinction was to be made, for excommunication could not pass against a whole body but an individual, and therefore would pass against every individual of the whole body. Having shown that the parties were subject to excommunication for the non-repair of the church, his next step would be to show that the parties were subject to imprisonment. Chief Justice Tindal, in delivering judgment for himself and seven other Judges, of whom the noble and learned Lord was one, in the case of "Binder v. Veley," said, the repair of the fabric of the church was a duty which the parishioners were compellable to perform, and not one which they might either voluntarily perform, or decline to perform, at their own discretion, but the law was imperative in directing the performance of this work as a compellable duty; when therefore the parishioners assembled in vestry they did not assemble to determine whether they ought to repair the church and maintain the service, for as to that they were concluded by the law, but how the work might most effectually and most conveniently be done, The judgment stated further that the parishioners could no more cast from them the burden

1837
of repairing the church than they could that of maintaining highways and bridges, and also that it left wholly untouched the power which the spiritual court possessed of enforcing church-rates. The learned Chief Justice also said that the spiritual court was empowered to compel the churchwardens to repair the church by spiritual censure, and might punish those parishioners who refused to perform their duty by excommunication; that was (said the learned Judge) since the statute of the 53d of George III., chap. 26, by imprisonment. This power still remained, and the spiritual court could now enforce, by imprisonment, the repairing of the church. But that this was considered to be the case by the Legislature appeared from an Act passed so recently as the statute of the 2nd and 3rd William IV., chap. 93, by which after reciting the inconveniences that had arisen front the process of the Ecclesiastical Courts being inoperative out of the limits of their respective jurisdictions, it was enacted, that any person who, having the privilege of peerage or of Parliament, or others, was ordered by lawful decree of any ecclesiastical court to pay any sum of money, and should not on monition pay the same, on certification thereof, sequestration might issue out of Chancery against the real and personal estate of such person. [Lord CAMPBELL: that refers to the nonpayment of the rates, and not the making of them.] He was speaking altogether as to the effect of the law on church-rates, both as to the making of them and as to the non-payment of them. He therefore said that the Legislature, even in their own time, had given to a sentence in the Ecclesiastical Court enforcing church-rates what was equivalent to an execution at common law and a judgment, and over and above all this sequestration of their lands out of Chancery. Instead, therefore, of the remedy for default in payment being less stringent, church-rates had this advantage over tithes or rates for highways and bridges; that church-rates could be enforced by sequestration, and he was consequently at a loss to understand upon what ground it could be contended that the present law was a dead letter. The noble and learned Lord on the woolsack need not feel annoyed at having overlooked this Act. This position reminded him of an incident in the life of Lord Chancellor Thurlow. Lord Thurlow was once called to account for having stated something to be law which was not. Lord Thurlow, in
1838
language which their Lordships could not expect him to repeat, reiterated that his decision was correct, and thereupon the objector showed him an act of Parliament. What was Lord Thurlow's reply? Why, that he should have felt ashamed of himself if he had been ignorant of the law of the land; but with regard to Acts of Parliament, he never pretended to know them, and he believed there was no one that did. He was aware that there had been long a desire to put church-rates on a different footing from any other charges on land. Lord Stanley stated that church-rates and tithes were quite distinct. There was one distinction between church-rates and tithes which certainly did exist, and was a distinction in favour of church-rates. For tithes they did not go to the land for the remedy, but they sued the party for subtracting the tithes. In the same way for highways, they did not go to the land for the remedy, but proceeded by indictment against the person. But in the case of church-rates they could not only go to the land, but to the person. The evidence given before the other House by an eminent lawyer, Dr. Lushington, was very remarkable. He did not know whether it was attributable to any connexion with the Radical constituency which that learned Gentleman had so long represented, but it was marvellous to see an ecclesiastical Judge having a strong bias against church-rates. Dr. Lushington being asked by the Committee if church-rates were at any time regarded as a poll-tax, said they were certainly of that nature. He never was more surprised than when he read that opinion, because church-rates were essentially contradictory to a poll-tax—a poll-tax being an equal tax on all persons, and church-rates being a tax according to property. If anything could surprise him more than the statement, it was the reason given by the learned Gentleman for it—that it was obvious they were of the nature of a poll-tax, because, whenever there had been a charge upon land, as in the case of tithes, there had always been a power of distress and seizing the lands. He had no hesitation in saying, that there was not, and never had been, that power in the case of tithes, and if he were wrong in expressing that opinion he hoped he should be corrected; but that being so, church-rates possessed an advantage over all other charges upon the person in respect of land, inasmuch as they were charges upon the land also. It appeared, therefore, that there

1839
was a remedy in the case of church-rates, that the remedy was imprisonment; that there was no legal difficulty in having recourse to it, and that it was totally without foundation to say, that the law of church-rates could not be enforced. Those who advocated an alteration of the law urged as a reason, that such was the disposition of the people that it was impossible to carry it into effect. In that House, the very sanctuary of justice, they ought not to be told that justice was not to be performed because it was unpopular in any quarter. The extent of that popularity was, however, greatly exaggerated. A right rev. Friend, after careful investigation, found that 4 per cent of the whole parishes in the kingdom was the whole extent of the resistance to church-rates. Then it was said, the number of cases did not show the amount of agitation. That might be very true; but if the Legislature attended to agitation, he believed they could not stop with the abolition of church-rates, they would have to go much further and to abolish —he would not say higher institutions, for he did not believe there could be higher than the Church—but institutions in a worldly point of view more important. And in what had this antichurch-rate agitation originated? He did not scruple to say, that this agitation had originated, not in a real popular movement but in a conspiracy, and that the conspiracy was recorded unblushingly in the evidence of Mr. Courtauld, who said,
"It had been previously determined as a very available mode of practically opposing a rate, that a Dissenter (and I was to have been the individual) should be the churchwarden."
He did not recognize Mr. Courtauld as a Dissenter; Mr. Courtauld was something more than a Dissenter, being a Unitarian; and he protested against his calling himself a Dissenter. He put it to their Lordships whether a number of persons combining for the purpose of preventing not merely a lawful act, but what it was the duty of the parties to do, was not a conspiracy?—whether, in law, it did not amount to a very grave misdemeanour, for which the parties, if prosecuted, would be liable to very heavy punishment? But he had not done full justice to the origin of his agitation in merely terming it a conspiracy—it was a conspiracy carried on by premeditated wilful perjury and subornation of perjury. He said that, because Mr. Courtauld was elected churchwarden in order to prevent the performance of the proper
1840
duties of the office. The duty of a churchwarden was stated upon high authority, that of Dr. Lushington in his evidence before the Committee, as follows:—
"The proper duty of a churchwarden is, as soon as ever he comes into office, to see what is requisite and necessary for the sustentation of the church, that is, the repair of the fabric, and the finding of things requisite for the decent performance of Divine Service; those are, strictly speaking, the expenses that ought to fall upon the church-rate. It is his duty to make an estimate in the first instance; to call a vestry immediately; to lay before the vestry that estimate, and to ask from them a rate; if they refuse him the rate, he has done his duty."
He wrote to the learned Judge who gave this opinion (Dr. Lushington), asking him whether there was not here an important omission—whether it was not the further duty of the churchwarden to present to the ordinary "the want of repair, that he had caused an estimate to be laid before the vestry, and that a rate had been refused." The learned Judge answered him, that "Such was the further duty of the churchwarden, and he authorised him to state that such was his judgment." The churchwarden's solemn declaration, in lieu of oath, was as follows—
"That I will well and truly perform the office of church warden within the parish of—, for the ensuing year, to the best of my skill and ability; and that I will present all such persons and things as by the laws ecclesiastical of this realm are presentable."
Their Lordships would now be enabled to judge of the morality of the gentlemen who conspired to procure Dissenters to be elected churchwardens, with a view to defeat the raising of church rates, which it was their duty to cause to be raised, and of which duty they were once solemnly sworn and now were solemnly "affirmed" to the performance. An indictment for perjury would not lie for the breach of a promise attested by oath; but it was morally perjury, and so in the case of a promise by way of solemn affirmation—which, by statute, was substituted for oath—to discharge a duty, such affirmation being made with the deliberate object of preventing it from being performed. Morally such conduct was justly accusable of perjury, and subornation of perjury and conspiracy to commit such crimes and violate the law. Yet the wealthy person who had set on foot this odious conspiracy had not scrupled to profess before the Committee scruples of "conscience," forsooth, as to payment of church-rates. This reminded one irresistibly of "straining at a gnat and swallow-

1841
ing a camel," But when they came to be examined into, these "conscientious scruples" turned out to be extremely curious. It appeared that Mr. Courtauld, although he refused to be rated either in the parish of Bocking or Braintree, in each of which he had property, yet in the neighbouring parish of Gosfield he was rated and paid the rate. Mr. Courtauld was asked this question by the Committee—"You have stated that you have yourself individually, and those with whom you act, unconquerable objections in point of conscience to the payment of church-rates imposed upon the parish of Braintree?" Mr. Courtauld replied, "I have." Whercon one of the Committee naturally asked how he could consistently and conscientiously pay a church-rate in the parish of Gosfield, whilst he refused to pay them in the parishes of Bocking and Braintree? The answer was remarkable, and he coidd well understand the curiosity evinced by his noble and learned Friend (Lord Lyndhurst), but he would defy his noble and learned Friend to guess what it was. Mr. Courtauld replied, "In the parish of Gosfield I have been permitted to construct a family vault and erect—[What?]—a family mausoleum." So that the gentleman who agitated against church-rates in one parish was a hyper-churchman in another, where he had aspired to the distinction of a family mausoleum. This was the right royal style! Few of their Lordships had mausoleums. "Mausoleum" was an Asiatic term of dignity and splendour, and here was the arch-agitator of Bocking and Braintree desirous of becoming the satrap of Gosfield. But when a magnificent estate, lent by an ancestor of the Duke of Buckingham to Louis XVIII., when an exile in this country, came into the possession of a wealthy person, ambitious of a "mausoleum," although the originator of the agitation against church-rates, it was very remarkable that he should select for its site the church or churchyard, and place it under the protection of church-rates. Mr. Courtauld added—"I am, consequently, in the habit of resorting to the parish church of Gosfield"—not on Sundays; let him not be suspected of anything so wrong, but—"on the death of any member of our family, and am thereby a partaker of the advantages resulting from the church of Gosfield." He wished Mr. Courtauld had had more consideration for the poor of those parishes in which he had acquired the enormous wealth that permitted him to
1842
extend his possessions into Gosfield, and to indulge his aspirations for a mausoleum. Would it not have been more decent if this wealthy person had taken some slight care that the hundreds of poor people, members of the Church of England, should have had the means of worshipping God in their own parish church? All that this wealthy agitator, however, cared for, it appeared, so far as parish churches were concerned, was that he should have a "mausoleum" in one of them, and the opportunity of interring therein any of the members of his distinguished family. Mr. Courtauld added—
"I should, however, explain that I, individually, do not partake of what is called the conscientious objection which is taken by many of my brother Dissenters."
He again, in the name of the Dissenters, objected to Mr. Courtauld calling himself a Dissenter. Mr. Courtauld also said that the question of the church-rate struggle, taken per se, was gone comparatively into insignificance, but was interesting to Dissenters, as bearing upon the important question of the separation of Church and State. This statement startled the Committee—one of whom said, "that is a large question, will you explain what you mean by separation of Church and State?" To which the witness answered, "I do not know how I can explain it better than by the words themselves—'separation of Church and State.'" The witness was a person of shrewdness. The words were significant enough, and amply described what the authors of this anti-church-rate agitation aimed at. It was well for their Lordships, then, to bear in mind that the concealed and ultimate object of any legislation for the abolition of church-rates was the separation of Church and State. If it was asked whether the present state of things was desirable, he (the Bishop of Exeter) answered that he deplored, regretted, and deprecated it; but he deplored it most deeply on account of the unscrupulous means by which the agitation was carried on, and the weak concessions made to it; so that there was no security that, ere long, their Lordships' House might not be polluted by the proposition of some measure for the abolition of churchrates—that is, for the separation of Church and State, which was the real and ultimate object of the promoters of such a measure. He would gladly see some measure by which the interests of religion might be secured with less opening for the

1843
dissension and acrimony which the present system tended to produce. But that it was not easy to devise such a system was shown by the successive failures of all that had been proposed; and he believed that no system could be projected less liable to evil than that which now existed. He had no special love for church-rates, but he agreed with the First Lord of the Treasury, who had said—
"If the law were that a compulsory power existed, requiring every parish to levy a rate, then that would be the best mode of providing for the fabric of the church."
Assuming—what he could not but assume—that some compulsory system was necessary, he did not believe that any better system than the present one could be invented. With regard to the voluntary system, he admitted that in many populous parishes, particularly in great cities, the church people might themselves do what was necessary for the keeping the churches in repair, and the country ought to be grateful to them for so doing; but he must caution them that all such voluntary measures had a fearful tendency to rob the poor of their rights and privileges. The Peers of England never would desert the poor of England; and, whatever measures they adopted, they must remember that the poor man has as good a right to a seat in church as the highest, the richest, and the proudest had to his rank, wealth, and station. The danger of voluntary measures was that those who contributed money would claim peculiar rights with regard to pews and sittings, and he was sorry that he was able to illustrate that danger by referring to the state of things in the city in which their Lordships were assembled. The parish of St. James, Westminster, contained a population of 36,400, of whom 20,000 were poor. The parish church contained 1,300 sittings let and appropriated, while there were only 400 free sittings for adults—of which not more than 200 were tolerably good—and 100 for children. In St. James's Chapel, York Street, there were 550 sittings let and appropriated, and not a single free sitting had been provided. St. Phillip's Chapel, Regent Street, contained 850 sittings let and appropriated, while the number of free sittings for adults was only fifty, and for children forty. In this chapel there were also 376 sittings in the roof, but they were out of sight and never occupied. He now came to a case of a better description—that of Archbishop Tenison's Chapel, in
1844
Regent Street, in which there were 550 sittings let and appropriated, and 400 free sittings for adults and seventy for children, all of which sittings were excellent. Then, again, in St. Luke's Church, Berwick Street, there were 400 sittings let and appropriated, and 380 free sittings for adults, of which 240 were good, and 600 for children. The population of these parishes amounted to 36,400, and their Lordships would perceive how inadequate the church accommodation was; but such results, he believed, they must expect from the voluntary system in towns. They had been told that one-fourth of the parishes in the country resisted church-rates; but, even if they left things as they at present were, he entreated their Lordships not to be induced, by apprehensions of dangers which it was said would arise if agitation on this question were allowed to spread, to desist from earnestly and strenuously resisting any attempt which might be made for the abolition of church-rates.
THE LORD CHANCELLORfelt it necessary to make some remarks, although it was a great disadvantage to have to follow the right rev. Prelate in debate, because the House, whether they concurred with the right rev. Prelate or not, always found him very entertaining. On the present occasion, too, the right rev. Prelate had very greatly amused their Lordships; but in the latter part of his speech, he had entirely lost sight of the subject of the petitions lie had presented and of the subject he had brought before the House; for however much it might be lamented that, in the large London parishes, where the churches were originally built for a population of one or two thousand, the accommodation was inadequate for either rich or poor, when it was multiplied to 30,000 or 40,000, it was not, surely, any fault of the church-rates that such deficiencies existed. No law had ever recognised the obligation of levying church-rates to build new churches as population advanced;—that had been done under special Acts of Parliament, from time to time passed; and if the Church Building Acts did not make adequate provision, that was quite a different question. The right rev. Prelate had, in a very entertaining way, described to their Lordships the aspiring ambition of what he called the House of Courtauld, and had amused their Lordships with his remarks upon the evidence of a gentleman of that name; but really, whether Mr. Courtauld

1845
was, or not, a Dissenter, as he described himself to be, that, with other private and personal matters, to which the right rev. Prelate had referred, were matters with which their Lordships had no concern at all. But to the former part of the address, he (the Lord Chancellor) felt himself bound to make some observations, inasmuch as the right rev. Prelate had insinuated that he (the Lord Chancellor) had, not intentionally, but through ignorance, misled their Lordships on a former occasion, and inadequately represented the state of the law as regards church-rates. Now he (the Lord Chancellor) would not shelter himself behind the example of Lord Thurlow, who replied to a similar remark (although in language far less courtly than that of the right rev. Prelate), "I don't consider myself bound to know all Acts of Parliament." He (the Lord Chancellor) admitted that if he had ever, unintentionally and in ignorance, misled their Lordships, he should ask their forgiveness, but he would say now exactly what he said the other night, because it happened to be a subject which, from accidental causes, had been present to his mind judicially, ever since he had occupied a seat on the bench; and therefore if he now forgot the result of that consideration he had formerly bestowed upon it, he should be quite unpardonable. It was about fifteen years ago that this question arose at Braintree, as to whether, when the parish would not make a church-rate, the churchwardens could not do it in invitos. That came to be considered, first in the Court of Queen's Bench, and was then carried into the Exchequer Chamber, and elaborately discussed, he (the Lord Chancellor) being one of the Judges of the Exchequer at that time, and his noble and learned Friend (Lord Campbell) being then, as he believed, Attorney General, was one of the counsel by whom the question was argued. It was very deeply considered, and certainly there was no disposition on the part of the Judges to warp the law; they looked into it most laboriously, endeavouring rather, if they could, to find that there was authority for saying that the churchwardens could impose that rate; and they would have been glad to come to that conclusion; but they found that there was no such authority, and consequently they declared against the rate. But, in delivering the unanimous opinion of the Judges to that effect, Chief Justice Tindal did throw out a suggestion which he (the
1846
Lord Chancellor) was sorry for, and which he did not conceive to possess any weight; but, although the Chief Justice was delegated to declare the opinion of the Judges together, he (the Lord Chancellor) should protest against its being considered, that every opinion expressed by him, and not material to the discussion, should be taken as what the other Judges who were present concurred in. He thought at the time that the suggestion of Lord Chief Justice Tindal would involve parties in expense, without any beneficial result. That suggestion was, whether, as it was the duty of the parish, by the ancient immemorial law of the land, to keep the church in repair, there might not be some doubt whether, when the parishioners were met to see how that should be done, those who chose to say, "We will not vote anything," did not put themselves in the same position as voters who, in the election of a Member of Parliament, chose to throw away their votes on something quite beside the purpose of the election; and whether the remaining parishioners might not then, although the minority, proceed to make the rate. The course thus suggested by Chief Justice Tindal was taken, and the question came before the Court of Exchequer again; and in the beginning of 1850 the Judges delivered their opinion. He, himself, thought the minority had no such power; and he gave his reasons. Mr. Baron Parke and Lord Truro took this same view; but the majority of the Judges decided in favour of the rate. It was brought, by appeal, before the House of Lords, but he (the Lord Chancellor) took no part in their Lordships' decision, though he thought it was a perfectly correct one. This being the state of the law, the churchwardens could not make a rate; the minority could not make it; then who could make it? The right rev. Prelate had asked, whether the parish was not liable? Undoubtedly, the repair of the church was part of the trina necessitas, so called by the old Saxon law, to keep the churches, the roads, and the bridges in repair. But it was an obvious maxim, that where there was no legal remedium, there was no jus; and such an obligation could not be enforced. The remedy, such as it was, was absolutely impracticable, and one it was quite ridiculous to speak of. In ancient times the predecessors of the right rev. Prelate, when the Church of England was Roman Catholic, knew how to enforce anything of this sort. It was doubtful whe-

1847
ther they ever imposed an interdict upon a whole parish, but they could excommunicate all the parishioners individually. But, to talk of that being a remedy in these days was absurd. The right rev. Prelate said, there was practically a substitute for it; and he referred to an Act by which, in case of a person under sentence of an ecclesiastical court, the Court of Chancery could formerly issue a writ de excommunicato capiendo, under which the person might be imprisoned. It is not quite so now; but if the person refused to submit to the sentence of the Ecclesiastical Court, that being certified to the Court of Chancery, a decree might be made requiring him to do so; and if he still refused, that would be taken as a contempt of Chancery, and a writ de contumace capiendo might be issued, and the defendant be put in prison—it was to be presumed, in such a case as the right rev. Prelate contemplated, until the church was repaired. But practically, there was no remedy; for nobody was bound to lay a rate: that was only the method adopted, by way of a bye-law, to keep the church in repair; and all the Ecclesiastical Court could do was, to lay hold of any parishioner, whether he was one who had voted for a church-rate or not, and to proceed against him, because his parish had not got its church in repair. But it was perfectly ridiculous to suppose that, in the nineteenth century, this could be tolerated for a moment. Such was the state of the law; and if the right rev. Prelate thought the case would be remedied by retaining the law in that state, others would not be so sanguine of it; because no sane man would ever institute any such proceeding. The right rev. Prelate had referred to some modern Acts of Parliament, giving the power of sequestration. But for what? Not for not having the church repaired, or for not snaking a rate, but for not paying a rate which had been lawfully imposed. No question if a rate was lawfully made, there were plenty of means of enforcing the payment of it; but the difficulty was to get the rate properly made. This subject had engaged the attention of the Government and of preceding Governments, and the real desideratum was to find out some mode of keeping all these valuable buildings in repair without causing that irritation of the minds of persons dissenting from the Church which they not unnaturally felt at being called upon to maintain a church to which they did not belong.
1848
He agreed with the right rev. Prelate that to talk of not paying the rate from conscientious scruples was in most cases a mockery; but the fact was that persons objected to pay church-rates, because they did not like the expense of having to keep up their own places of worship, and being bound at the same time to contribute to those of churchmen. It might not be a very highminded feeling, but it was not very unnatural. Any person who should propose a plan which should offer a reasonable security for keeping the churches in repair without irritating the feelings of those who differed from the Church, would confer a great boon upon the community, and would deserve well of the country. It would be wrong now for him (the Lord Chancellor) to say what the Government contemplated. An hon. Gentleman in the other House had obtained leave to introduce a Bill upon this subject; but he could not yet say how far that measure might be adopted or improved upon, or whether, later in the Session, or next Session, the Government might not feel it expedient to undertake the question.
THE BISHOP OF LONDONsaid, he entirely concurred with the right reverend Prelate, that the abolition of church-rates would, through the Church, strike at the cause of religion, and at the rights especially of the poorer members of the Church of England. He very much doubted whether the means for enforcing the levying of a church-rate could be applied: but, at the same time, he was confident that their Lordships would not agree to the Bill which was likely to come up from the other House, and the object of which was, he understood, simply to abolish church-rates. He was by no means without hope that eventually a measure would be devised which would secure the rights of the poor, and provide efficiently for the maintenance of the fabric and for the necessaries requisite for the performance of divine service, and yet should not be encumbered with the many difficulties which at present rendered the enforcement of church-rates almost nugatory.
LORD CAMPBELLthought that the House and the public were very much indebted to the right rev. Prelate who had initiated the present discussion. The subject was one of the highest importance and would not brook delay. The Bill, as their Lordships knew, was pending in the House of Commons, which would probably

1849
be shortly laid before their Lordships, for the total abolition of church-rates, without providing any substitute. To that Bill he never would give his assent, for he believed it was absolutely necessary to maintain the establishment and to provide for the efficient performance of religious worship. He confessed that the proposal for the total abolition of church-rates deeply shocked him, and he was surprised that it had met with support from some quarters in which he thought a strong opposition would have been manifested; for he looked upon such a measure as neither more nor less than one of spoliation. While, however, he thought the right rev. Prelate had done good service in bringing the matter before the attention of the House, he was of opinion that the right rev. Bishop had made use of a false argument in opposition to the Bill; for he could confirm the statement of the noble and learned Lord on the woolsack, that at present there was no means whatever of enforcing the making of a church-rate, although, when the church-rate had been made by the majority of the district, there was no difficulty in enforcing its payment. In the Roman Catholic times of this country there was no such difficulty, for the effect of the ecclesiastical censure was then tremendous, and those who refused to make the rate were cursed with bell, book, and candle, and cut off from the benefit of the sacraments. Since the Reformation there had been no instance of a successful personal proceeding against persons who refused to make a church-rate. The first attempt was made in the time of Lord Kenyon, when an application was made for a mandamus to compel the making of the rate; but that learned Lord had decided that he had no power to interfere, and referred the parties to the ecclesiastical tribunal, and that decision had been followed to the present time. He (Lord Campbell) believed that if stringent measures were adopted, such as imprisoning parties who refused to make the rate, the effect would be most injurious upon the interests of the Church. He should rejoice if some measure could be suggested which, like the measure in substitution for the church-cess in Ireland, would provide for the support of the fabric and the maintenance of Divine worship in churches, while at the same time it would relieve Dissenters from the payment of a rate to which they conscientiously objected.
THE BISHOP OF EXETERbriefly re-
1850
plied, reiterating his statement, that by the statute of 1833 it was distinctly provided that every order made by an ecclesiastical court should be obeyed, under the penalty of writ de contumace copiendo. Whether it were for the enforcement of a rate already made, or for the making of a rate, it was the same thing; and he was able to say, as he had said before, that it had been proved by experience to be effectual, for in several cases it had been put in force; and as soon as the threat of putting it in force was made known, the rate was made. By the very confession of the agitators at Braintree, they dreaded the exercise of that power.
Petition to lie on the Table.

WAR WITH RUSSIA—CONDUCT OF THE WAR—PETITION.
THE EARL OF ALBEMARLEsaid, he had to present a petition from merchants, bankers, manufacturers, and inhabitants of Bristol, praying that their Lordships would be pleased to take such steps as were in their power to induce Her Majesty's present Ministers to establish a strict blockade of the enemy's ports, and to make such representations to the Prussian Government as should compel that Power to close the overland trade with Russia. At the same time he wished to move for certain returns relating to the various products of Russia, in order to show that there had been more than the usual quantity imported from that country recently, and to prove the inefficiency of the blockade of last year. He also wished to ask in what manner the Government proposed to allow the trade with the enemy to be conducted in future? It appeared to him that this subject was the most important that could by any possibility occupy their Lordships' attention. The disposal of everything rested with a higher Power; but, humanly speaking, he considered that the Government were responsible either for peace or war. He believed it to be in their power, by an energetic and vigorous policy, to bring the war to a speedy termination; or, failing in that energy, to make the siege of Sebastopol another siege of Troy. He trusted that their Lordships would excuse him if he borrowed a phrase used in another place, to the effect that "it was the policy of Government to inflict the maximum of injury upon the enemy, and the minimum of injury upon ourselves." Now, with regard to inflicting the maximum of injury on the enemy, the question

1851
naturally arose, in the first place, had we done so? and next, was there any reasonable prospect that we should do so in the next campaign? War was declared upon the 28th of March, 1854; and, as the law stood at that time, it was felony, if not treason, for any subject of these realms to trade with the enemy. That wholesome law was departed from, unfortunately for this country, for it was his sincere conviction that, had we adhered to it, instead of attending Vienna Conferences with "bated breath and whispering humbleness," instead of appearing as suppliants suing for peace, and submitting to the humiliation of a refusal, we should have Russia at our feet, begging for peace upon any terms, and imploring us to save her from the fury of a nobility whom our measures had driven to beggary and despair. The Government, last year, declared their intention to establish a strict and vigorous blockade. The blockade of the Baltic was tolerably effective; the blockade of the Black Sea was partial, and unfortunately, the partiality was in favour of the enemy; for while we blockaded the mouths of the Danube, and shut in from the markets 2,000,000 quarters of corn belonging to our friends, we left all the ports of the enemy open, and let out millions of quarters of linseed belonging to the enemy. The British merchants, relying on the repeated assurances of the Government, regarded the Black Sea as tabooed, and, looking upon it as treasonable to trade with the Black Sea, went to Africa, to India, and elsewhere, and brought a large supply of linseed into this country. But the enemy was beforehand with them, and they were obliged to sell their produce at a depreciation of 15 per cent. In this case, therefore, the maximum of injury was inflicted upon British merchants, while the maximum of profit was enjoyed by the enemy producers. It appeared, from the best authentic accounts, that more than 10,000,000 l. of gold and silver went into Russia from this country in the first year of the war for goods received. It was to be presumed that the Government would not renew the blunders of last year, but that both in the Baltic and the Black Sea there would be a strict and vigorous blockade, as far as ships could effect it; but ships alone were abortive to make that blockade effectual. The petition he now presented was conclusive on this point. The land transit trade from Russia to Prussia must be diminished. By the mode
1852
in which it was conducted the goods were not, as heretofore, transmitted to St. Petersburg, but were brought through the departments of Smolensko, Tver, and Novogorod, to the frontier town of Taurogen, and were shipped thence to Memel, the distance of only a few miles. He thought that the Government were bound to do one of two things—either to raise the blockade, to diminish their naval armaments, to send out more land forces, which of course involved the shedding of more blood, or to take the alternative—enforce the blockade vigorously by sea and land. In the petition which had been entrusted to him the House was called upon to "take such steps as to compel the Prussian Government to close the overland trade with Russia." Now, upon the nature of these he would not enter: he left them to the responsibility of Ministers. His wish at the present moment was only to ventilate the subject, and he would first go to the question of prohibition. That was no new subject to the Government, past or present. That prohibition was urged upon the Government, and was recommended by the persons of all others who were most competent to advise them—namely, the merchants trading with Russia. Ever since he had a seat in either House of Parliament he had been an enemy of class interests; but he could not but advocate the views of these merchants, for he believed that their interests and those of the public were inseparably connected. Their advice was certainly preferable to sending 10,000,000 l. to recruit the resources of the enemy. It had been asserted that such a prohibition would not succeed, and that it would inflict no injury upon Russia, and great injury upon ourselves. He was ready to take the converse of that proposition, and to prove that this step of entirely stopping the trade of Russia would inflict the maximum of injury upon Russia, and the minimum of injury upon ourselves. He argued this from the peculiar nature of the trade. Their Lordships were perfectly aware of what the export trade of Russia consisted. It consisted of a few articles of raw produce, raised by serf labourers, who were the property of the nobles of that country. The Russian landlord nobles were a military caste; they not only held all the principal commands in that country, but the whole army was raised by them. All the ranks were filled with them, from the field-marshal down to the private sol-

1853
dier. Every landlord was a soldier, and landlords were not a very patient order of beings in any country; but a soldierlandlord, with a sword at his side, was a man who, in a military country, was likely to make himself heard. Well, these exports were the property of the soldier-landlords of Russia. The exports formed the rent of the Russian nobility; any injury to the rent must be an injury to the nobility. Now, the policy of this country last year, and their policy this year, as it had hitherto gone on, was the very opposite of all the principles which they had been talking about, as to inflicting a maximum of injury upon Russia, and a minimum of injury upon themselves. One effect of these imperfect blockades had been to make the war popular with the people of Prussia. It in some degree reconciled them to the disgrace which the vacillation of their sovereign had brought upon them, and made the gain to their interest act as a counterbalance to their loss of honour. But a far more serious consequence of our policy was, that it made the war popular with Russia, and its soldierlandlords; and as long as that feeling existed, let our successes be as brilliant as they might in the Crimea, peace was utterly impossible. There could be no peace until they made those exponents of public opinion in Russia, those military landlords feel more severely the pressure of the war. But so far from that having been the case, the land transit of last year had produced the most beneficial effect to them. They netted, it was true, a little less profit on their exports; but their horses and carts for carriage were an immense source of profit to them—so remunerative, indeed, was it found to be that they brought carts and horses from the confines of Siberia. A good system of policy on the part of this country would not have brought about such a state of things. The object of this country ought to be to make the war unpalatable to the Russian nobility, to make their exports unsaleable, to make their serfs unprofitable. On this export trade the Russian noble entirely depended, and his habit being always to live up to his means, and generally far in advance of them, he had no money to fall back upon as a resource whenever that export trade should fail him. There was no middle class in Russia. No man in Russia could supply himself with a conveyance of his goods to the marts; that was wholly in the hands of a small but a highly-respectable body of British mer-
1854
chants; the Russian landlords could not convey their goods to the port of shipment; that was, again, supplied by British merchants. Now, this body of Englishmen, as respectable a body as any in that country, had been in existence before the present capital of Russia was known, and when its site was a desolate spot amid the marshes of the Neva; even before the name of Peter the Great was known they were carrying on trade at Archangel between Russia and England. He dwelt upon this, because these merchants had repeatedly declared to the Government, that if the orders in Council permitting the trade were repealed, and that the Statute law were to be enforced as it was before those orders were made, they would entirely discontinue the Russian trade. They ought to be believed in that assertion, for it was obvious that men of their high character were not disposed to risk their honour as British merchants, and to incur disgrace and banishment by evading the law. He therefore wished their Lordships to bear in mind the inevitable consequences that would arise from their not carrying into effect the statute law which made it treason to trade with an enemy. That, independently of any measure to prevent the ingress of Russian products, would destroy at once two thirds of her exports, and three-fourths of the capital by which it was carried on—for three-fourths of her money transactions were conducted in London. It was said, that if these merchants did abandon the trade, another class of persons would come forward; but who were they, he should like to ask? Who could succeed those merchants? Let us see what would be their requirements. First, they must be men of capital and of credit from the very nature of the trade. It should be specially borne in mind that the trade was one of advances, and unlike the usual system of trading. Everything was to be paid in advance, and who were the persons to do it? Were they merchants of any other country? They did not exist in Russia; they did not exist in Prussia. There were none. He did not wish to speak of any particular country or place, but he understood that there was nobody so low in purse or in credit as the Prussian merchant. If they took the test of solvency—namely, the rate of discount, he believed that the Prussian merchants paid 20 per cent discount, and were those the persons to take up a trade involving an enormous capital? The idea was utterly preposterous. But

1855
capital was not all that was required. They might have capital and credit too, but something more was still wanted. Great local knowledge and a personal acquaintance with the native agents were equally necessary, for without these all the capital and credit they could command would not enable persons to understand the way in which this trade was carried on. The British merchaut made repeated advances from the beginning of Autumn to the beginning of March in the following year to a set of native agents. Those agents had to travel from 500 to 1,000 miles into the interior, visiting the various fairs and marts of commerce, for the purpose of bringing back the commodities which they were commissioned to purchase. They were often delayed, and had to wait the melting of the snow to enable them to float their river boats, by which they were conducted to the port of shipment. The question would naturally suggest itself, what security had the merchants that these men would not run away with the property? There was none whatever —practically speaking, there was no redress at law for such a contingency. But, notwithstanding, it was known perfectly well that the trade was carried on profitably—and why? Because from its being an old-established trade there had sprung up a degree of confidence on the one hand, and a principle of good faith on the other, which prevented those parties from dealing unjustly. How, he would ask, was it possible that such a class of men should suddenly spring up in Russia? They might, no doubt, in the course of years, but, in the meanwhile, what would become of Russia—what would be the condition of Russia? That was the point to which he wished to call the attention of their Lordships—it was the most important question of all. By adopting the course these merchants demanded, her exports would be destroyed; the rouble would be of the value of a French assignat; in two years her finances would be in the most inextricable confusion; and the soldier landlord, the man upon whose courage and fidelity the Sovereign must depend in the day of battle, would be rendered desponding, despairing, and disaffected, when your prohibitive policy had taught him that not merely had the war stripped him of his serfs—not merely had it burdened him with taxes, but that it had brought him to beggary and ruin by having entirely deprived him of his trade. Could the war
1856
be carried on for a single year by Russia under these circumstances? He was not speaking entirely in ignorance of the country or of its people, for he had travelled from one end of Russia to the other. He was there in 1824, and saw a little of the temper of the nobility at that time, and they talked just as freely of the insurrection which took place there the year after as the clubs of London now talked of the efficiency of Her Majesty's Government. There appeared to be an undefined notion abroad in this country that if a stop were put to our trade with Russia we should be ruined for ever; but what foundation was there for such a notion? There was none whatever. Their Lordships must bear in mind that the raw products of which the Russian exports consisted were not of so rare a kind that one country only could produce them, but were to be had all over the world. The Russian hemp, for instance, was by no means the best that came into the market, and he found by the prices current of last Saturday that 16 per cent more was obtained for the Manilla hemp than for the hemp produced by Russia. It could also be obtained from the North of France and Lombardy, and from the latter country the Government had procured several thousand tons. Passing from Europe to India, they would be lost in wonder at the superabundance in that country of the materials which were now obtained from Russia; all the vegetable creation seemed to resolve itself into the three products of hemp, flax, and if not into animal tallow, at least into a substitute for that article. From the Himalaya Mountains to ten degrees of south latitude there were whole tribes of trees which furnished a substitute for hemp. The nettle also produced rope superior to the best Russian rope, for a Russian fibre had broken with a weight of 160lb. while a fibre of nettle had held 400lb. without breaking. The Philippine Islands, again, produced the Manilla root, which, after clothing 4,000,000 of people, came into the market as the best rope in the world. Iron was also a great competitor with hemp. When the iron cable had first superseded the vegetable cord cable, down had gone the price of hemp, and it had again gone down since the patent for iron wire had expired; the iron cable was now used by all the great companies and shipmasters, being as efficient for the standing rigging of the smallest yacht as for that of the largest vessel. It was stated by Messrs. Noble, the great hemp brokers, that if Her

1857
Majesty's Ministers would declare that it was unlawful to trade with Russia for one year, such an impetus would be given to the growth of these textile fabrics that they would be able to compete with the products of Russia in price, quality, and quantity. Russian flax was beaten by that of Belgium, the latter having a superiority of 12 per cent in the market. Here, again, they might depend upon a supply from India, as the immense population of that country, and their great industry and mechanical skill, rendered those products the most profitable which partook of a vegetable and a manufacturing character, such as hemp and flax. Last year, as president of the Agricultural Association in his own county, he had urged the cultivation of flax upon the agriculturists of Norfolk, but he was glad they had not taken his advice, as he had given it in reliance upon the assurance of the Government that an effective blockade would be maintained. Ireland, too, was peculiarly fitted for the production of this fibre, from the comparative cheapness of its labour, the humidity of its climate and the fertility of its soil. Several of the northern provinces had already cultivated it. The celebrated engineer, Sir J. M'Neill, had, on the faith that the blockade of the Russian ports was to be strictly enforced, laid 600 acres under flax, but the market was glutted by Russian produce, and he could now only sell at a loss. Ho now came to the question of tallow. Before war was declared Russian animal tallow had been losing its price in the market, having been superseded by vegetable oils, and the taking the duty off soap had had a great effect in extending the number of substitutes for animal tallow. Messrs. Price and Co., the largest candle manufacturers in the world, who employed no less than 2,000 workmen, had not a cask of animal tallow upon their establishment, its place being supplied by palm and other vegetable oils. The palm, from which this oil was obtained, grew along the coast where the slave trade prevailed, and it had been found that in proportion as the slave trade diminished, an increase took place in the quantity of oil produced, so that by rescinding the order in Council of April 15, 1854, they would contribute to diminish the slave trade. France, again, which was a great exporter of candles and soap, abstained almost entirely from the use of animal tallow, substituting for it what was commonly called the African ground or pig-nut, which they obtained from Al-
1858
geria—it, however, was not a nut, but of the pulse kind, and grew in almost every part of Africa; it was easily cultivated and very remunerative. In order to show how unexpectedly and the facility with which substitutes were found for tallow, he would cite the instance of the Irish Peat Company, started for the purpose of extracting from peat a naphtha oil, which was worth about 1s. per gallon; but it was soon found that this oil possessed the high lubricating quality necessary for machinery, and in a few months the price rose from 1s. to 5s. a gallon. Peat was not a very scarce thing in Ireland, and he therefore hoped that the Peat Company would contribute their quota towards substitutes for Russian tallow. The Government had, thanks to the blockade, inundated this country with Russian goods—hemp, which was at 70 l., had fallen to 50 l.; flax, which was at 52 l. per ton, had fallen to 37 l.; and tallow had declined from 70 l. to 48 l. An argument used against the rescinding of the order in Council was, that it would tend to encourage trade among neutral Powers, and that in Prussia flax mills would spring up on every side. But what was the mighty competition which was feared? In Prussia there were but nine flax mills; they might erect others, but in order to do so they would require time, capital, skilled labour, and machinery, which latter must all come from England. No manufactory could be erected under 50,000 l., and while these preparations were being made it was supposed that Prussia would be allowed to continue in her quasi state of hostility, breaking the law of this country by breaking the blockade, and allowing goods to come through her territory, supplying at the same time our enemies with arms and munition of war. But Prussia might be found either employed in stopping the ingress of Russian goods, or might find an allied fleet blockading her ports in the Baltic, and a Russian army on the right bank of the Rhine; or there might, perhaps, be an appeal to the nationalities, which had been expressed by more than one of Her Majesty's Government without any great disfavour being shown, he believed, by the Chief Minister. But if matters came to the worst this competition on the part of Prussia would but end in a few million more yards of Silesian linen. They were also told that in Italy and Holland this neutral trade would be carried on; but the question again arose, where would they find capitalists and men? He

1859
had dwelt thus much on the importance of putting an end to the war by stopping the funds by which the trade was carried on, but he did not attach much importance to the machinery by which the progress of Russian products into this country was to be prevented. The plan proposed by the petitioners was, that the importer of Russian products should make an oath before the consul that such goods were the products of another country. Now, he admitted that these certificates might occasionally be evaded, that an importer might be found to swear to anything; and a blundering consul—though he hoped the Government would only appoint efficient men—might not be able to discriminate between Riga, St. Petersburg, or Lombardy hemp. But he derived his belief of the efficiency of certificates of origin from the nature of the men who would be employed; for they must be men of capital and credit. He thought he had already shown that the sacrifices which this country would be called upon to make would not be so serious as might be supposed; but if we were not prepared for sacrifices, why did we go to war? No nation with a great external trade could enter upon war without making sacrifices. War entailed two burdens—the heavy expenses of naval and military establishments, and the interruption of the trade of the country with which it was at war, this latter loss being in proportion to the extent of trade with the enemy. How did this country stand with regard to Russia? This country could, in a commercial point of view, better go to war with Russia than with any other country, as Russia had, during peace, inflicted more evils on this country than any other by its hostile tariffs. In fair and open trade between two countries, in the exchanges of products for products, the balance of gold and silver was sometimes on one side and sometimes on the other. How did this country stand with regard to Russia in this respect? From the return of exports and imports last laid on their Lordships' table, he found that British exports to Russia amounted to 1,228,404 l., while this country received from Russia imports to the amount of 9,200,841 l., so that this country had to pay a balance of gold and silver to Russia of 7,792,437 l. The object of this country ought to be to make Russia suffer more than it did; but, as our trade was of more consequence to her than her trade was to us, it was as evident as a demonstration
1860
in Euclid that, under the present state of things, this country had been inflicting the maximum of loss upon itself, and the minimum on Russia. We took two-thirds of the whole of the exports of Russia, while Russia took scarcely one-eightieth part of the products of this country. The account, therefore, stood thus:—By losing our custom, Russia lost two-thirds of her export trade, and nearly all the capital by which it was carried on; while we lost a very trifling portion of our trade, and the capital was our own. But even if so favourable a balance could not have been shown, was this a question which ought to be treated in a miserable huckstering style? Were Russian hides and tallow to be weighed against English blood and sinew? Viewing the question even in this, the narrowest point of view, it would be found that we had the means of greatly crippling the commerce and enterprise of Russia, without proportionate sacrifices on the part of this country; for it would cost us only one-eightieth part of our exports to reduce the imports of gold and silver into Russia by something like 7,792,000 l. He thought the bargain would be a good one. Well, now, that would be precisely the effect of the step he was urging upon Government; although it might be opposed to the principles of political economy. No doubt it is very much opposed to political economy, but so is war in every shape and form. In truth, war and political economy, as every one must see, are incompatible with each other. War implies a negative of all trade; hence no principles of political economy, or any other principle connected with peaceable relations, are involved.
LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLYsaid, that there could be no objection to the production of the papers for which the noble Earl bad moved, although he was afraid that they would not give much information, as they afforded a very imperfect test of the amount of commerce carried on. The noble Earl complained that the blockade had been imperfectly exercised, and that there had been little injury inflicted upon the Russian trade while a great deal had been done to our own. He would beg to direct their Lordships' attention, however, to the circumstances under which the blockade had been first instituted. We were engaged in a war with Russia in concert with an ally who entertained a different opinion to ourselves with regard to questions of maritime law and the rights of bellige-

1861
rents. They recognised the right of neutrals to carry property of the enemy without being subject to the right of search, and that was one reason which rendered it necessary to deal tenderly with any interference with the commercial proceedings of the enemy. But there was another circumstance which rendered that necessary. It was the practice for merchants in this country to pay in advance for Russian produce, and the consequence of that system was, that at the time when the blockade was instituted, nearly all the Russian produce which was lying in the ports of the Baltic and the White Sea was, in point of fact, the property of English and French merchants, and not of Russians. If a blockade, therefore, had been immediately instituted upon the breaking out of the war we should have injured our own subjects, and not those of Russia. For this reason it was thought desirable that the period for commencing the blockade should be extended, and that time should be given to allow of the exportation of all such produce from Russian ports; but that order in Council had only reference to British merchants and in no way altered the law. The noble Earl, stated that the blockade had not been enforced. Upon this point he must join issue with the noble Earl, for he believed that since the blockade had been enforced in the White Sea and the Baltic not one single cargo of Russian produce had been exported from any Russian port upon those seas. With regard to the Black Sea, he admitted that the circumstances were different, and he regretted that they were so. We had not had ships available for the purpose of enforcing a blockade in the Black Sea; and the consequence was that a large amount of produce was imported thence into this country, to the benefit chiefly of the Greek merchants. A blockade had, however, now been imposed (from the 1st of February) of every Russian port, and there was no single port of the Black Sea, the Baltic, or of the Gulf of Finland, which would be in future unblockaded. The geographical position of Russia was such that a marine blockade could without much difficulty be established, because, although there was a large extent of territory, the maritime outlets were few. He would now call their Lordships' attention to the actual result of the blockade which had actually had a great effect in crippling the Russian trade. The total importation of hemp for the year ending March,
1862
1854, was 1,208,371 cwt., of which there was from Russia 802,706 cwts., or 66 per cent., while from other countries there were 405,665, or 34 per cent; while in the year ending March, 1855, the total imports were 1,281,076 cwts., of which there were from Russia 422,439, or 33 per cent., and from other countries 858,637 cwts., or 67 per cent.; so that the proportions were actually reversed. It must be also remembered, that all excess of Prussian trade in this article over the importation of the previous year had been considered Russian produce. The total importation of tallow for the year ending March, 1854, was, 1,210, 151 cwts., of which there were from Russia 840,137, or 69 per cent., and from other countries 370,314, or 31 per cent. In the year ending March, 1855, the total imports of that article were 797,090, of which from Russia there were 424,064, or 53 per cent., and from other countries, 373,026, or 47 per cent., showing a decrease in the total imports of 34 per cent., and a decrease in Russian imports of 49 per cent., but an increase from other ports of 1 per cent. With regard to flax, the imports for the year ending March, 1854, were 974,864, quarters, of which from Russia there were 749,908, or 77 per cent., and from other places 224,956, or 23 per cent. In the year ending March, 1855, the total imports were 854,771 cwts., of which 403,663, or 74 per cent. were Russian, and 451,108 quarters, or 53 per cent., exports from other countries, showing a decrease in the total imports of 12 per cent., and of 46 per cent. in the Russian imports, but an increase in the imports from other countries of 100 per cent. There were some other details with regard to tar, bristles and raw cotton, with which he need not trouble the House at that late hour. He had referred to these returns to show the very considerable effect produced even by the partial blockade for a portion of the last year, and the more rigorous one in the present. What then, might be expected next year, when there would be a continuous and effective blockade?—And it was only reasonable to suppose that the trade of Russia with other countries had been reduced in a corresponding degree. There could be no doubt that the trade of Russia would be most materially crippled. He now came to the main proposition of the noble Earl—that referring to the absolute prohibition of all Russian produce, whether exported from

1863
Prussian or from other German ports and the entire cessation of their own commerce with Russia. Now, he would ask the noble Earl how it was possible to arrive at a knowledge as to whether the produce imported from neutral ports was Russian or not? Were the English consuls at every Prussian or other German port to give their certificates that the produce exported was the production of the country from which it was exported? It was notorious that certificates of origin were most falacious in their operation; and, if merchants were unscrupulous enough to engage in trade with an enemy, they would not prove an effective means of putting a stop to such trade. Even if it were possible to arrive at the knowledge that the articles so exported were Russian produce, and not that of the country from which they were exported, they would not be able to get rid of the difficulty, for when produce had been submitted to any process of manufacture, however slight, it became a "manufactured article" and was considered the produce of the country from which it was exported, and not of that from which it originally came. Now, with regard to tallow, a very slight operation was sufficient, in law, to convert it into a manufactured article. So with regard to hemp and flax. Under those circumstances, it would be very difficult to certify what was really Russian and what the produce of other countries, and he need hardly point out to their Lordships how extremely cautious they should be in interfering with the genuine trade of neutral countries. He trusted that the noble Earl would be satisfied with what had been already done, and with what was likely to be done in the present year, when the blockade would be efficiently and immediately enforced, more especially when he considered that half of the Russian trade had been destroyed, her mercantile marine swept away, and her men of war were ignominiously shut up within her arsenals or sunk in the entrance of her ports, whilst the British flag floated triumphantly unquestioned on every sea; when the noble Earl considered all these things, he would find that he was hardly justified in saying that the blockade had been emtirely ineffectual.
LORD BERNERSwas glad that this question had been brought before the House, and expressed his gratification at hearing that the blockade was to be rigorously carried out. He should be still
1864
further gratified if the policy, which he believed to be the true national policy, were further pursued, by the destruction of private property in Sebastopol, which had, as he understood, hitherto been spared.
THE EARL OF ALBEMARLE, in reply observed that the returns from which the noble Lord the President of the Board of Trade had quoted were incomplete, and therefore no inference could be drawn from them. If he found the assertion of his noble Friend, that this blockade would be made effectual, established by the fact, he should be perfectly satisfied; but should that not be the case, he certainly would at some future period put his views in the form of a Resolution, and take the sense of the House upon it.
Petition ordered to lie on the table; also, Return ordered of the quantity of Hemp, Flax, Tallow received into this country from Russia and Prussia between the 1st of January and the 27th of April in the years 1853, 1854, and 1855 respectively.
House adjourned to Monday next.