Lords Sitting of 13 June 1862

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1a Elections (Ireland); Elections for Counties (Ireland); Rifle Volunteer Grounds Act (1860) Amendment; Inclosure; New Zealand.
2a Oxford University.

PROCLAMATION OF GENERAL BUTLER.

  QUESTION.
  THE EARL OF CARNARVONsaid, he wished to put a Question to the noble Earl the Secretary for Foreign Affairs, in reference to a proclamation stated to have been issued by the commander of the Federal forces, General Butler, at New Orleans. That there might be no misconception of the terms of this proclamation, he would read what had been published as the copy of it—
  "Head-quarters, Department of the Gulf,
  "May 15.
  "As the officers and soldiers of the United States have been subject to repeated insults from the women calling themselves 'ladies of New Orleans,' in return for the most scrupulous non-interference and courtesy on our part, it is ordered that hereafter, when any female shall, by word, gesture, or movement, insult or show contempt for any officer or soldier of the United States, she shall be regarded and held liable to be treated as a woman of the town plying her avocation.
  "By Command of Major Gen. BUTLER."
  He would not insult the House by making any comment on such a proclamation as this; but it was perfectly obvious one of two things must be meant. It was either a mere menace, or it was intended to be a reality. If it was merely a menace, then it was a gross, unmanly, and brutal insult to every woman in New Orleans, since it was a notorious fact that all their sympathies were unanimously on the side of the Confederate cause. On the other hand, if the proclamation were intended to have a practical effect, he begged their Lordships to observe, that by the terms in which it was couched it gave larger and more unlimited power to the Federal troops
  534
  than had ever been given to any soldiery. They had heard of towns that had been taken by storm being subjected to the violence of the troops; but the proclamation was absolutely without precedent or parallel, in a commercial city that had capitulated, and of which the hostile army held quiet occupation. He would do the people of the Northern States the justice to say he did not believe they were in any sense identified with the conduct of General Butler, and that they would repudiate this extraordinary document. But if this was the way in which the war was to be carried on in future, it would become a war of extermination. The Question he wished to ask was, whether Her Majesty's Government had received any information as to whether this proclamation was authentic or not? He wished also to state, that there had been for some days past reports of a proposal made by the Government of France to Her Majesty's Government, for concerting jointly the terms of a mediation between the belligerents in this civil war. It was quite obvious that the whole value of such a mediation must depend on the terms in which it was couched, on its general character, and the spirit in which it was received. But, assuming that the mediation would be such as they could join in, consistently with their own self-respect and the material interests of this country, he hoped the Government would give the propositions their earnest consideration. He should be glad lo hear from the noble Earl how far it was true that negotiations were at this moment in progress between the two Governments with reference to mediation.
  EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, in answer to the first Question put to me by the noble Earl, I beg to inform him that the only information which we have received on the subject is a despatch from Lord Lyons, in which he encloses a newspaper containing this proclamation, and, after alluding to its purport, says that the intelligence from New Orleans appears to confirm its authenticity. I believe that the proclamation is authentic; but we have no information as to any opinion— any approval or disapproval — expressed by the American Government. Lord Lyons does not appear to have raised any question with the American Government on the subject, though there is no public act of the American Government disapproving the proclamation; and I do not find that the United States

  535
  Minister in this country has received any despatch alluding to it. For my own part, I sincerely trust, for the sake of the American Government itself, that they will lose no time in disavowing the proclamation—if, indeed, they have not already refused to sanction it. It is important as regards the character of the American Government that this should be done at once; but I think likewise it is of importance to the whole world that the usages of war should not be aggravated by proclamations of this character. War is of itself quite horrible enough, and to add to its horrors by such proclamations is a grave offence not only against the particular population who are subjected to hostilities, but against mankind in general, whose interest it is that those usages should be made less rigorous and less cruel. As to the proclamation itself, I have been told that it is susceptible of this explanation:—The purport of the words is to the effect, that if any woman shall show contempt for any officer or soldier of the Federal army, she shall be regarded as liable to be treated as a woman of the town plying her vocation. Now, there are in New Orleans local regulations by which women of the town who are guilty of any disorder in the streets are liable to be sent to prison, and I am told that the meaning of the order is, that any women treating the Federal officers and soldiers with contumely in the public streets shall be held to be women guilty of disturbance in the town, and be sent to prison as such; but I quite feel with the noble Earl that even if the proclamation is not meant to be put in force, it is likely to give the soldiery a licence for great brutality. For my own part, therefore, I must say that I see no defence for the proclamation, and I can only hope sincerely that the United States Government will disavow it altogether, and will declare that it meets with their decided disapproval.
  I cannot answer for this interpretation being correct. The noble Earl has asked me as to the truth of a rumour which has obtained currency, that the two Governments of France and England intend to offer their mediation between the Northern and Southern States. The spreading of this rumour may prove exceedingly mischievous, and therefore I am glad to have an opportunity of stating the true state of the case. Her Majesty's Government have made no proposals of the kind to the Government of France, and the Govern-
  536
  ment of France have made no such overtures to ours. Moreover, the French Ambassador here has stated that he has no instruction on the subject; and I need not say, therefore, that there have been no communications between the two Governments of the tenour which has been spoken of. Without giving any opinion as to the propriety, at some time or other, of offering our good offices or mediation, I must say that I think the present time would be most inopportune for such attempt at mediation. No good could come of it, and in the present state of the war, and in the present embittered state of feeling on both sides, such an offer would rather tend to prevent any good result from being attained, if it should be deemed desirable to attempt such mediation hereafter. Certainly, there is no intention on the part of Her Majesty's Government to mediate at the present moment.

UNITED STATES—RIGHT OF SEARCH.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  LORD BROUGHAMsaid, there was another subject of the greatest importance on which the Governments of England and France ought to come to some understanding. In consequence of the American concession of the right of search, he was informed that an attempt would be made to transfer the slave trade to a French port, and to carry it on under the French flag. It was well known that the profits of the trade were enormous; so that if one ship out of five or six escaped the cruisers, and landed her cargo, great gains were made by the traders. In this very city men were taking steps to engage in the slave trade, in proof of which he would read this letter from a highly respectable merchant of London—
  "The circumstances to which I alluded arose in the following way. A gentleman, with whom I am intimately acquainted, named to me that an offer was made to him to join others in the African trade. I immediately made observation that I trusted it was not in the slave trade, to which he replied that it was, and I therefore declined. I remarked, how will this affect the right of search established with England and America? Upon which he snapped his fingers, and said it was the intention to sail under French colours, and the point of departure Marseilles. My friend further stated that a very large amount of money was at command, but that every movement was conducted with the utmost secrecy; so much so that upon one occasion a check had to be changed by one of the parties."
  He had no doubt that the French Government would hear with indignation of this

  537
  attempt to make Marseilles a slave-trading port, and to carry on this traffic under the French flag; but, under the circumstances, it was absolutely necessary that some communication should take place between the two Governments, so that France might extend permanently the right of search to us, which she had done for a few years.
  EARL RUSSELLcould assure his noble and learned Friend that this subject had not escaped his attention. As soon as the treaty with the United States was ratified, he wrote a despatch to Her Majesty's Ambassador at Paris, stating the probability that now that the United States flag could be no longer used for the purposes of the slave trade, other flags would be resorted to, more especially that of France, and urging the French Government to enter into some treaty or convention upon the subject. It appeared that the treaty of 1845 put an end to all former treaties on this subject which had been in force between the two countries. It was provided that that treaty should last ten years, and that then, if not renewed, it should expire. In 1855 there was no proposal on either side to renew the treaty, which therefore expired. It was certainly necessary now that some new arrangement should be entered into between the two Governments, and his noble Friend might rely upon Her Majesty's Government to do all that was in their power for the suppression of the slave trade.

SCOTLAND (BOARD OF SUPERVISION FOR THE RELIEF OF THE POOR) —ROMAN CATHOLIC CHILDREN.

  PETITION.
  THE MARQUESS OF NORMANBY presented a Petition of Roman Catholic Inhabitants of Edinburgh, complaining of certain decisions of the Board of Supervision for the Relief of the Poor (Scotland), with respect to Roman Catholic children. The noble Marquess said that the Petition was signed by 3,740 Roman Catholic inhabitants of Edinburgh and Leith, and complained that they did not enjoy that religious freedom to which they were entitled, and which was secured to them by law, and that constant attempts were made to tamper with their religion in the persons of the most helpless class—the children of their faith who were inmates of the poorhouses. The subject was not a new one in that House, for a Petition similar in prayer to that now presented had been
  538
  heretofore submitted, and had given rise to some discussion, and he thought the Government were bound to interfere, to check the evils complained of. Of late years the population of Scotland had been largely, and, as he believed, beneficially, increased by the immigration of labourers from Ireland, who were all Roman Catholics, and thus that body could not be said to form an inconsiderable portion of the whole population of Scotland. It was calculated that there were about 393,000 Roman Catholics in Scotland, there being in Glasgow about 110,000, and in Edinburgh between 20,000 and 30,000. The Roman Catholics, therefore, numbered about one-seventh of the population of Scotland. These persons were engaged in the hardest and worst-paid employment, and consequently their children formed the largest portion of the pauper class, it having been estimated that of the pauper children under the charge of the Parochial Board of Edinburgh no less than one-sixth were Irish and one-third Roman Catholic, the difference between the two figures being the children born in Scotland of Irish parents. When this subject had been last discussed in that House, the noble Duke opposite (the Duke of Argyll) congratulated them that the statement he had made had satisfied their Lordships that there was great exaggeration in the complaints that had been made. How the noble Duke had arrived at that conclusion it was difficult to understand, as the complaints had certainly not been satisfactorily answered. If fair words and promises were of any benefit, the Board of Supervision had been profuse of them; but he was informed that after the lapse of a short time the system of proselytizing had been practised as extensively as ever. The Roman Catholic chaplains who attended the poor-houses in Edinburgh complained of the distribution of Protestant tracts among the children, in some of which were ribald verses reflecting upon the Roman Catholic religion, while in others a more decent but more dangerous course was pursued. The Board of Supervision, when complaints were made, said that the clergyman who distributed the tracts might have acted wrongly, and that what had been done was without their sanction; but no reference was made to the allegation that Roman Catholic children were punished for refusing to read the tracts. The noble Marquess referred to a written statement of Sir J. M'Neill, Chairman of the Board of Supervision, in

  539
  which the Roman Catholics of Scotland were told, that as they were a small minority, and must depend on the will of the majority for any toleration they received, they ought to take care how they stirred questions which might lead to their being deprived of the advantages they now enjoyed. Nothing could be more unlike the tone of a protector of the weak than such language. An impression had got abroad that the present Government did not always observe that impartiality between different religions which was incumbent upon them, especially since the passing of the Catholic Emancipation Act. Their Lordships would all recollect the case of Mr. Turnbull, who had been removed from his situation in the Record Office, for which he was in every way qualified, simply because he was a Roman Catholic. He did not accuse noble Lords on the Ministerial bench of having changed their principles, but it could not be denied that in Ireland an apprehension had been excited by the conduct of a Member of the Executive that something like the cry of "No Popery" was to be raised. As a sincere Protestant, he believed that the spirit of Protestantism was a spirit of toleration; and he must say that the most objectionable kind of persecution was that exhibited when those in authority used their power to force their own opinions upon those who differed from them. He was afraid that at present that system prevailed to some extent in Scotland. He entreated their Lordships to recollect that these petitioners did not ask for any special favour—on the contrary, they expressed the utmost confidence in the administration of the Poor Law in Scotland. All they desired was that their complaints might not be referred to a Ministerial Board, in whose decisions they had no confidence, but that they might be heard in public before the recognised tribunals of the country.
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLLsaid, he was rather surprised at the great warmth—he might say, the great heat—with which the noble Marquess brought forward this petition; but every secret came out at last, and so it appeared that the noble Marquess connected this case, as he did everything else, with his unfortunate Italian policy; and therefore he made it a deliberate charge on the Government in connection with this wretched question, that they were influenced by the "No Popery" cry, and meant to prosecute their Roman Catho-
  540
  lie fellow-subjects. He really thought such observations entirely beside the question, and he should not further condescend to notice them. When this subject was brought before their Lordships last year, the Petition then presented was conceived in very temperate language, and the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Derby) stated its allegations, for which he did not, however, vouch. The noble Earl was kind enough to give him (the Duke of Argyll) previous notice, not only of the general tenor of the Petition, but also of the individual cases to which it referred, and he wrote to Sir John M'Neill, from whom he had received a statement in reply, which he had submitted to their Lordships, and which he believed satisfied them that there was very considerable exaggeration in the allegations of the petition. He did not say that there might not be some individual cause of complaint, but certainly he thought he satisfied the House that the rules adopted by the Board were intended to defend Roman Catholic children from proselytizing influences. The noble Marquess had given him no notice that he intended to refer to particular cases; the notice on the paper was simply that he would present a Petition from Roman Catholic ratepayers in Edinburgh. The noble Marquess had alluded to two particular cases, of which he was entirely ignorant, having received no notice respecting them, and he was not therefore prepared with any answer with respect to them. He would, however, take that opportunity of alluding to a somewhat similar case mentioned by the noble Earl behind (the Earl of Wicklow) some weeks ago, and with respect to which some correspondence had taken place. That case would show the extent of exaggeration of which he complained. On investigation it completely broke down. An Irishman, named Gillan, a twister in Glasgow, married; his wife died, and he enlisted in the army, committed his only child to the care of Mrs. Flint. He went to India, but for some time corresponded with Mrs. Flint. Ultimately, the child was thrown for support on the parish. Mrs. Flint was a Protestant, and the board took the natural course of continuing the child with her to whom the surviving parent had intrusted it. Several Roman Catholic relations of the father were living near, but they made no inquiries as to the child until it was five years old, when they applied to hare it removed. The child had at first been placed in a Roman Catholic School; but

  541
  not learning there, it was placed in a Protestant school, and the board declined to remove it. None of the parties who came forward were ready to come under an obligation to the parochial board, to relieve them of the child's maintenance or education; and he remained in the school, where, several Roman Catholics having placed their own children, it was to be supposed there was no proselytism. The fact was, that Roman Catholics in going to Scotland had, in some instances, the desire to conform to the religion of the country. In this very case it turned out, on reference by the parochial board to the War Office in May last, that Gillan had enlisted, not as a Roman Catholic, but as an Episcopalian. If the noble Marquess had given him notice of the cases he meant to mention, he would have made inquiries into the facts; but he repeated, there were no grounds whatever for the sweeping— he might say monstrous — accusations which had been made against the parochial board and the Board of Supervision.
  THE EARL OF WICKLOWknew nothing of the facts, except as stated in the Petition he had formerly presented. He wished, however, to know why the parochial board had placed this child in a Roman Catholic Seminary, if they had reason to believe that its parents were Protestant?
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLL, in answer, said, that the correspondence with the War Office took place only last month, and till then the Board of Supervision had reason to believe that Gillan was a Roman Catholic.
  THE EARL OF WICKLOWsaid, he believed that the child had been placed in a school where the Protestant version of the Scriptures was not read. There was a universal feeling among the Roman Catholic population of Scotland, from the Bishop down to the poorest labourer, that they were not treated with justice in this matter. It was therefore absolutely necessary for the restoration of confidence that some inquiry should take place; and he trusted it would be instituted without delay. When similar complaints arose in England, an inquiry was immediately granted; and it was still more necessary in Scotland, where it was believed that the Board of Supervision was not impartial. He might remark, in conclusion, that the persons whose petition he presented last Session had complained to him that the noble Duke, while giving a general contradiction
  542
  to their allegations, had not produced any counter-statement whatever, far less one of a satisfactory character.
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLLsaid, the Board of Supervision would have no objection to produce the correspondence which had taken place between them and the petitioners to whom the noble Earl referred.
  THE EARL OF DONOUGHMOREsaid, the noble Duke had not answered any one of the statements made by the noble Marquess. He hoped, that if it were true, as stated by the noble Marquess, that Sir John M'Neill had told the complainants that if they did not keep quiet they would be subjected to even worse treatment than at present, the Government would at once interfere. It was natural to suppose that the local boards would allow their religious feelings to influence them in the performance of their public duty; and it was clearly the business of the Board of Supervision to see that the law was carried out in the just and liberal spirit in which it was framed. The principle of the Poor Law was that relief should be given without reference to religion, and he trusted the Government, in the performance of its duty, would see that justice was done to all parties.
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLLreminded their Lordships that the Board of Supervision had actually issued a regulation to the effect that Roman Catholic priests should be allowed free access to conduct the education of Roman Catholic pauper children. It was impossible to suppose that the Board of Supervision had any wish to proselytize.
  After a few words from the Marquess of NORMANBY,
  Petition to lie on the table.

OXFORD UNIVERSITY BILL— [BILL No. 88.]

  SECOND READING.
  Order for the Second Reading read.
  THE EARL OF DERBY, in moving the second reading of the Oxford University Bill, said, the object of the Bill was to extend the power of making statutes possessed by the University, and to make further provision for the administration of justice in the Chancellor's Court. For the former purpose the Bill enabled the University to make regulations in reference to certain Professorships, to suppress certain Professorships when no longer required, to annex conditions to certain Professorships, and to vary the trusts of certain

  543
  scholarships. All statutes passed under this Bill were to be submitted to Her Majesty in Council in the same manner as required by the University Act. The 12th section simply gave power to the Vice Chancellor to make rules for the regulation of his Court.
  Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Monday next.

RED SEA AND INDIA TELEGRAPH COMPANY BILL— [No. 70.]

  COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLLexplained that this Bill was intended to give the sanction of Parliament, not to the arrangement between the Government and the new company, but only to that limited arrangement between the Government and the old company under which the latter would transfer to the new company their property in the cable upon payment of a sum of,£36,000 a year by way of interest, such sum being now converted into the more negotiable form of annuities charged upon the Consolidated Fund.
  House in Committee.
  Bill reported, without Amendment; and to be read 3a on Monday next.
  House adjourned at Seven o'clock, to Monday next, half-past Eleven o'clock.