Lords Sitting of 19 June 1862

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—2a Public Works and Harbours Act Amendment; Highways.
MEXICO—THE ALLIED FORCES.

  STATEMENT.
  EARL RUSSELL, on presenting a Petition, said: I beg to take this opportunity of making a statement to your Lordships as to matters of considerable importance upon which it is desirable no misapprehension should exist. It has been stated in the public prints that a Convention has been entered into by Sir Charles Wyke and Commodore Dunlop on one side, and the Mexican Government on the other, by which the British claims on Mexico will be satisfied, and that the Convention has been ratified by Her Majesty's Government. The first part of that statement is certainly correct. A Convention has been signed by Sir Charles Wyke and Commodore Dunlop, and it has been sent home for ratification. The arrangement contemplated for the satisfaction of British claims was fair and liberal; but we found that the Convention referred to another Convention between Mexico and the United States, by which the former gave security on its lands for the repayment of a loan to be advanced by the latter; and finding that this might give occasion to considerable difficulties, Her Majesty's Government determined not to ratify the Convention. There is another point upon which I wish to make a statement to the House. It is generally believed in France, and much circulated here, that Her Majesty's troops, together with the Spanish troops, were withdrawn from Mexico, leaving the French troops alone to contend with the difficulties of the situation. Now, after the temporary check which the French received, no one can be surprised that the French Government have resolved to send large reinforcements to Mexico; but it is not fair or just to ascribe that movement to any course taken by the British Government. In the original Convention of October last there was no specific engagement as to the number of troops to be sent by the different Governments that were partics to it, but communications were made separately by each Government. The Spaniards declared that they meant to send 6,000 or 7,000 troops. The French Government said at first that they would send 2,000, which was afterwards increased to 2,500 men. The British Government proposed to send a squadron with 700 Marines, to be landed, if necessary, for the occupation of forts, it being the opinion of the Admiralty that the operation

  721
  of marching troops through Mexico would probably be attended with great loss of life. The Marines were landed, and for a short time occupied some forts. It seemed that the land forces met with difficulties, and Commodore Dunlop, in order not to have the appearance in any way of leaving the allies in the lurch, said he would provide, by his own activity and resources, camp equipage and conveyance. That, however, was not approved by the Home Government, and orders were sent out that the Marines should be re-embarked. Commodore Dunlop, on his side, very soon found that there was no immediate danger of collision with the Mexicans, and he determined to send away the Marines, who were never intended to march up the country. They were accordingly removed from Vera Cruz. After this came the Convention, and the allied Commissioners agreed to a procès verbal, with regard to which I will now say nothing, as I do not wish to enter into the great question involved in it. But it should be known that at that time there were only 150 Marines in occupation of the various forts; and when the rupture took place between the French Commissioners on the one side, and the English and Spanish Commissioners on the other, it was determined by Commodore Dunlop to haul down the British flag in the ports of Mexico, and to withdraw this small force. There was thus no question of withdrawing troops from Mexico, for there never were any land troops there; the only force we ever sent in the naval squadron was a force of 700 Marines, the greater number of whom had been withdrawn some time previously. I thought it necessary to make this statement, as I believe that great misapprehension has arisen on the subject. I am informed that considerable indignation has been expressed in France as to the presumed withdrawal of troops by this country at a very critical moment. That supposition, as I have shown, has no foundation in fact, as there were no British troops to be withdrawn from Mexico.
  THE EARL OF MALMESBURYsaid, he was extremely glad that the noble Earl had taken the initiative in this matter, and had given so satisfactory an explanation upon the subject, which had certainly occasioned considerable anxiety both in France and in this country, and an impression that something like an unfriendly feeling had been manifested by England towards France. He (the Earl of Malmes-
  722
  bury) had therefore intended to give notice to the noble Earl of his intention to ask him a question on this subject on to-morrow or Monday. In respect to the first part of the noble Earl's explanation, he must say he entirely agreed with the noble Earl as to the modification of the Convention which he proposed. He thought that the noble Earl had made a prudent arrangement, and that the danger which he anticipated would have very likely occurred if he had not provided against it. But he (the Earl of Malmesbury) did not think the noble Earl spoke strongly enough as to the indignation felt in France as to the supposed desertion of their allies by the British army. It was not only a common rumour —it was not only a national misunderstanding; for if the noble Earl would read the Address sent to the French Chambers by the French Government, he would see that that feeling was likely to be prolonged. He read that Address this morning; but as he had come down to the House only for the purpose of giving notice of his intention to ask a question in respect to it, he was not prepared to give the exact words. But, undoubtedly, the meaning of it was, that there had been some common understanding between the two Powers with respect to a military advance into Mexico, and that the British Government had not carried out their part of the agreement, but, on the contrary, at a most critical moment had deserted the French troops and left them exposed to serious dangers, which with the assistance of the British troops they would have been able overcome. He thought it most important, as regarded the honour of this country, that the true facts of the case should be made known to the French people as speedily as possible. He was very glad that the attention of the noble Earl had been drawn to this subject, and he trusted the noble Earl would point out the real facts to the French Government, which he believed to be of precisely the character stated by the noble Earl, as soon as possible. He did not think that the noble Earl had used language strong enough in regard to this misapprehension of the public press and the French public on this subject, seeing that that misapprehension must have been very much strengthened by the language of the French Government.
  THE EARL OF CARNARVONwished to ask a question of the noble Earl with

  723
  respect to this matter. By the last Mexican papers issued by Her Majesty's Government it appeared that Sir Charles Wyke and Commodore Dunlop had left Mexico and had gone to New York. Now, it appeared that the Convention signed by those two gentlemen was signed subsequent to that time. He wanted to know whether they had acted with the sanction of Her Majesty's Government in going to New York, and whether the noble Earl had any objection to lay the papers upon the table in reference to this point?
  EARL RUSSELLsaid, that Commodore Dunlop and Sir Charles Wyke never went to New York. Sir Charles Wyke wrote home to say that it was his intention to go there, but he never executed that intention. He was now living at Mexico, but not in an official character, and he had informed the Mexican Government that he would not resume that character until the Convention had been ratified by his Government. The Spanish Secretary of Legation was also, he believed, living there in an unofficial capacity. With regard to the Address of the French Government to the Chamber, it certainly contained a statement liable to misapprehension. But the papers which had been laid before Parliament, and those which were about to be produced, were likely to remove that misapprehension. He intended to write a despatch to the French Government upon the subject, which would, he hoped, tend to the same result.
  THE EARL OF MALMESBURYsaid, there was one more point which he thought it important to notice. According to the public prints there appeared to be a feeling in Mexico that Sir Charles Wyke had taken a strong part with the Mexican Government as against the proceedings of the French. He did not believe that report at first, but it was said that Sir Charles Wyke had attended the theatre in public on an occasion when money was being raised for the Mexican wounded, and had thus identified himself with that party. Now, although the performances at the theatre might have been for a charitable object, it did not appear to him that it was a proper act of Sir Charles Wyke to appear publicly at the theatre on such an occasion. He (the Earl of Malmesbury) was sure that in this country there was no feeling whatever against the French in regard to their proceedings in Mexico. His own feeling was that they had made a great mistake in policy and were paying
  724
  dearly for it. But he must say that the state of Mexico was such that any change of government must be an improvement, and the people of Mexico and the world generally were likely to profit by the acts of the French, however opposed those acts might be to the interests of France.
  EARL RUSSELLsaid, that Her Majesty's Government had no information that Sir Charles Wyke had acted in the manner stated. He knew that such a report had reached Paris, but Sir Charles Wyke's letters, dated May 12, contained nothing on the subject. If Sir Charles Wyke had appeared publicly at the theatre on that occasion, he quite agreed with the noble Earl opposite, that it was a very injudicious act on his part.

UNITED STATES—CASE OF "THE EMILY ST. PIERRE."

  CORRESPONDENCE.
  LORD BROUGHAM, on behalf of his noble and learned Friend (Lord Lyndhurst), whose health, as their Lordships would be glad to hear, had greatly improved of late, moved for the correspondence which had taken place respecting the capture of the Emily St. Pierre by the Americans, and her recapture from the prize crew. He understood that there had been some correspondence upon this subject, and he wished to know from the noble Earl whether there would be any objection to produce it?
  EARL RUSSELL: I have no objection to lay the papers before the House, as the Correspondence is now closed, and Lord Lyons, in his last letter, promised to send it home immediately. The opinion of the Law Officers was taken upon this question, and they stated that there was no power in this country to surrender the vessel, or to give it up to the United States Government. It was said by them, and was at that time supposed to be the case, that there was no precedent on the case; but I have been informed this morning that there is a precedent, singularly enough, when the British Government demanded from the American Government the surrender of a vessel which had been recaptured by the crew after being seized as a prize. Mr. Adams, the grandfather of the present American Minister in this country—and he must say that the diplomatic agent who bore his name was a most worthy descendant of that distinguished statesman — was then President of the

  725
  United States, and he replied that there was no precedent for such a demand. The result was the British Government failed to obtain the redress they sought from the American Government.

HIGHWAYS BILL— [BILL No. 93.]

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the day for the Second Reading read.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY, in moving the second reading of this Bill, said, he believed it was now thirty-one years since a noble Friend of his, now present, proposed a Bill in the other House of Parliament to amend the law relating to highways. Since that time there had been frequent attempts to legislate on the subject, and a Bill had at length successfully passed the other House of Parliament, and was now brought up to their Lordships' House in a shape which he trusted would secure their approbation. It had been carefully investigated by a Select Committee of the House of Commons. It was very desirable to establish some system by which they could secure the formation and maintenance of good roads throughout the country. The principle of this Bill had already been adopted with great success in South Wales, where, the roads had been considerably improved and the expense had not been increased. The mode of procedure proposed to be enacted under this Bill was, that any five justices of the county might present a requisition to the Court of Quarter Sessions, and the court might make an order requiring that the whole county, or any part of the county, might be formed into districts. That provisional order had to be confirmed at another Court of Quarter Sessions, and the additional confirmation of the Secretary of State was then required. Power was given to appoint a paid surveyor and a paid treasurer, and each parish was to appoint a waywarden, in the same way that the surveyors of highways were appointed now. He would not go further into the details of the measure, which could be more appropriately considered in Committee; but he trusted that on the present occasion he should receive the assent of their Lordships to the second reading of the Bill.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYobjected to the Bill, on the ground that it took the power of taxation out of the
  726
  hands of parishes, and transferred it to an irresponsible body. He thought it would be best that the Bill should be sent by their Lordships to a Select Committee.
  LORD PORTMANsaid, that great efforts, in which a noble Duke opposite and himself had borne a part, had been made in former years in the other House of Parliament to pass some such measure as the present, which was urgently needed. The Bill was little more than an enlargement of some clauses which were now the law; but the area of management was not sufficiently large. It was extremely desirable that this measure, which had come down from the House of Commons, should be considered and amended by their Lordships, if it required amendment, and he hoped that it would become law this Session. To refer it to a Select Committee would not be a convenient mode of discussing it. Two or three of the clauses demanded careful consideration, which could be bestowed upon them in a Committee of the Whole House. On the whole, the Bill would, he believe, tend to give the country better roads than it had at present, and at a much less cost.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMONDagreed very much in what had fallen from the noble Lord who spoke last as to the necessity of passing some such measure as this, and could corroborate from his personal knowledge the statement that its subject had received a considerable degree of attention from the other House of Parliament. Concurring in the principles of the Bill, he thought that all the Amendments necessary to make it a good and useful measure could be made in Committee of the Whole House.
  LORD LYVEDENwas glad to see a Highway Bill that had some chance of passing, because it had also been his lot, in common with many others, to labour in this cause without success in the House of Commons. He believed that no Bill would be effectual that was not compulsory; but he was willing to see this measure adopted, because it would extend the area of management and give them surveyor with larger districts under their charge. Improvement in this respect was urgently called for in his own county, which paid £37,000 for the repairs of its highways, and yet the greater part of them were impassable in the winter.
  THE EARL OF CARNARVONsaid, he thought this essentially a Bill of detail, which could be more conveniently dealt

  727
  with in Committee than on the second reading. He perfectly agreed in its general principle, but there were one or two points which deserved consideration at the present stage. The mode in which it was proposed that the parishes should contribute to the common highway fund, was in some respects very objectionable. The average expenditure incurred by each parish during the three preceding years was the basis on which its contribution was to be computed. That rule would operate most unfairly towards those parishes which had made a large outlay upon the improvement of their roads, while it would let those parishes which had neglected their duty go almost scot-free. The second point to which he wished to advert related to the power which the Bill would give the Secretary of State over the order of the Court of Quarter Sessions in respect to the new highway districts. This he thought interfered too much with the local management. The order must be submitted to the Secretary of State before it was binding; but what could the Secretary of State know of the necessities of the various localities? Such an interference was not only unnecessary, but would be mischievous, inasmuch as it relieved the justices of a responsibility which fairly belonged to them. At the same time, he must say, there could be but one wish on the part of their Lordships—to make the measure as practicable as possible.
  THE MARQUESS OF BATHthought the present law quite sufficient for all practical purposes. The remedies when a road got out of repair were ample; but the fact was that persons refrained from indicting bad roads because of the odium they would be certain to incur. All that was really necessary to accomplish all they desired was that some officer should be appointed to go over the country, and where the roads were found out of repair to indict the parties liable. The Bill would only entail unnecessary expense, supersede local authority, and increase the influence of the Secretary of State's office.
  LORD LYTTELTONmaintained that a measure of this kind ought to be compulsory.
  LORD REDESDALEconsidered the measure entirely experimental, and no doubt before it was long in operation it would require Amendments in a variety of particulars. He supported the Bill.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYsaid,
  728
  he was glad to observe the general disposition of their Lordships in favour of the principle of the Bill. He should be happy to consider any suggestions that might be made to simplify or improve its machinery.
  Motion agreed to.
  Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Monday, the 30 th instant.

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

  BILL RE-COMMITTED.
  On Order of the Day for the Third Reading,
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLLsaid, it had been objected on a previous occasion that the Bill gave the sanction of Parliament not merely to the old, but also to the new Company; and with the view of meeting this objection he now proposed to omit the three first lines of the 1st clause, which confirmed the arrangement between the two Companies, and to insert a recital of the arrangement which would be set out in the schedule, and which was embodied in the Treasury Minute. The effect would be to give the sanction of Parliament to that part of the agreement between the two Companies which required such sanction, and the transfer of the property and the conversion of the money payment given by the statute.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNwas anxious that the new agreement should be produced. It might be the best or worst agreement in the world, but which he could not tell until he had the opportunity of seeing it.
  LORD REDESDALEdefied anybody to see how the matter stood by looking at the Correspondence; and he complained of the loose way of transacting business of this kind by Treasury Minute which referred to Correspondence as embodying the agreement. The more business-like way would be to have a regular formal agreement prepared, though he could understand that Companies preferred having informal arrangements, because they knew that the result was that it would tend to their interest and against that of the public. Another circumstance was that probably the parties interested would not be satisfied with the alteration now proposed. His own opinion was that the Bill should be recommitted in order to introduce the Amendment, because the effect of this

  729
  would be to give the parties interested an opportunity of seeing the precise shape in which the Bill would pass.
  LORD WODEHOUSEjoined in requesting their Lordships not to read the Bill a third time until they had seen the agreement set out in a clear and intelligible form.
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLLsaid, it was only intended to give the sanction of Parliament to that part of the agreement which required its sanction. It was supposed that expressions were used in the preamble and clauses which left it ambiguous, and he proposed to strike out the words to which exception had been taken. The Bill had passed through the Commons without objection, and it threw no additional burden upon the public funds.
  LORD LYVEDENagreed in the objection that had been taken as to the difficulty of ascertaining what the agreement really was. He objected to indirect allusions to engagements entered into by the Crown. They ought to be clearly and intelligibly stated. Private companies were fond of loose agreements; and if difficulty occurred, the Crown was called upon as a point of honour to make good every expectation.
  EARL GREYtrusted the noble Duke would adopt the suggestion of the Chairman of Committees, and recommit the Bill. The Committee might be adjourned for a few days, and the Government would then have time to look into the matter.
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLLthought there was no necessity for this; but still, if noble Lords were of a contrary opinion, he had no objection to postpone the Bill again.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORrecommended their Lordships to accede to the suggestion that the Bill be recommitted, in order that they might have full information upon the subject, and be enabled to agree upon such amendments as would prevent the necessity of the Bill being rejected by the House of Commons.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid, the jealousy he felt was that the Treasury, or any public Department, should have the power to make agreements involving a large expenditure of public money without bringing them before Parliament. The province and duty of the House of Commons he had always understood to be to inquire into such questions as these.
  THE EARL OF DONOUGHMOREasked whether the Government were in a position to oblige the contractors to fulfil the clause of their agreement, which made them re-
  730
  sponsible if the telegraph was not in working order? He believe that such a clause was in the contract embodied in the Treasury Minute, and he would therefore ask the noble Duke to lay that document on the table.
  THE DUKE OF ARGYLLsaid, the original agreement, signed by Lord Derby and Mr. Disraeli, was already printed in extenso in an Act of Parliament. The present arrangement was simply with a view to make the best of a bad bargain; for, so carelessly was the first agreement drawn up that there was no doubt that the Government had bound themselves to pay £36,000 a year, whether the telegraph was laid down successfully or not. There was not the slightest wish on his part to conceal any documents which bore directly or indirectly upon the subject; and, in conformity with what appeared to be the wish of the House, he would consent that the Bill should be now recommitted with a view to its being reprinted with the amendments he had suggested.
  Order of the Day for the Third Reading read, and discharged; and Bill re-committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
  House in Committee; Amendments made: The Report thereof to be received on Monday the 27th instant; and to be printed as amended [No. 109].
  House adjourned at a quarter past Seven o'clock, to Monday next, half-past Eleven o'clock.