Sitting of 10 February 1862

MINUTES.
Public Bills.—1o Coventry Poor Act Amendment; India Stocks Transfer; Exchequer Bills; Parochial Assessments.

MADRAS ARMY—QUESTION.
COLONEL SYKESsaid, he wished to ask the Secretary of State for India, What foundation there is for a statement, received from Madras, that the Madras Government is circulating a Memorandum in the Madras Army that the Memorials of Officers to the Secretary of State for India on grievances arising out of the Amalgamation Scheme would not be forwarded in exlenso?
SIR CHARLES WOODsaid, as far as the Government were informed they had no reason to suppose that any such memorandum had been issued. The only possible foundation for the statement, as far as he could judge, was that certain memorials had been received in full, and there were others identical in their nature, which the Commander-in-Chief did not think necessary to transmit in extenso. They were a mere repetition of what had already been received, and it was clear that the decision of the Government in one case would apply to the whole.

ALLOWANCES TO WITNESSES AT ASSIZES AND SESSIONS.

  QUESTION.
  MR, ALGERNON EGERTONsaid, he rose to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he intends to introduce, during this Session, any Bill in relation to the Allowances to Witnesses at Sessions and Assizes?
  SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, that in the year 1858 a scale of allowances to witnesses in criminal trials at assizes and sessions was promulgated, which had been prepared, after full consideration, by the officers of the Treasury and Home Department. Great objection was made to that scale, which was a uniform one, on the ground that it operated differently in different parts of the country, and the right lion. Gentleman the Member for the University of Cambridge (Mr. Walpole) who succeeded him (Sir G. Grey) at the Home Office, issued a Commission which was directed to consider the question along with other matters. The Report of that Commission, which was presided over by his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, and comprised the hon. Baronet, the Member for Somersetshire, and the hon. Members for Kent and Macclesfield, substantially confirmed the scale with reference to the payments by the Treasury; but they admitted that there had been cases where the scale might not be sufficient in certain parts of the country, and they recommended that the magistrates in the counties referred to should have power to increase the allowances, provided that such extra expense were defrayed out of the county rates and not by the Treasury. A Bill was brought in last Session by the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of War (Sir George Lewis) to give effect to that recommendation. But it was brought in

  121
  rather late, and was not proceeded with. The magistrates of the county represented by the hon. Gentleman (Mr. A, Egerton) had recently addressed a memorial to the Home Office, regretting that the Bill had not been considered by the House, and he (Sir George Grey) intended to reintroduce it on an early day.

THE LUCKNOW PRIZE MONEY.

  QUESTION.
  SIR MINTO FARQUHARsaid, he placed on the paper notice of a question as to when the Lucknow Prize Money would be distributed, but that the telegrams which had appeared in the papers that day had answered the question, by informing them that it was about to be distributed immediately. He desired, however, to ask when the Kirmee prize money would be distributed?
  SIR CHARLES WOODstated, that the subject was under consideration. The French troops were entitled to a portion of the prize money, and it was not as yet decided what portion our troops were entitled to.

UNITED STATES.—BLOCKADE OF THE SOUTHERN PORTS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. PEACOCKEsaid, he would beg to ask, Whether any communications have been received with reference to the efficiency of the blockade of the Confederate ports established by the Northern States, and if so, whether such papers would be laid on the table?
  MR. LAYARDreplied, that the papers on the subject to which the question of the hon. Gentleman referred were being prepared, and would, he hoped, be upon the table on an early day.

CHURCH RATES.—QUESTION.
MR. HOPWOODsaid, he wished to ask, Whether it was the intention of the Government to deal with the question of Church Rates this Session?
SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, that it was not the intention of the Government to propose any Bill on the subject.

SUPPLY.
  LORDS COMMISSIONERS' SPEECH.
  Considered; Motion "That a Supply be granted to Her Majesty."

INCOME TAX.
SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYsaid, that he did not rise to oppose the Motion for granting Supply, being well aware that it was necessary to have a very large one. During the last three years the House had been compelled to vote £212,000,000 for public purposes, and although it was true that there was no war pressure, and that therefore the Supply would not be so large as in previous years, yet there were one or two points to which attention ought to be called at this early stage. One of those points which he wished to press on the attention of the Government was, that whatever might be the amount of Supply required, taxes ought not to be levied in such a manner as to unduly press upon or harass the taxpayers; and the other, which he was not then going to enter upon, was that the supplies, when raised, should be expended with judgment and economy. With regard to the first of these points, he had received information from large bodies of taxpayers stating that they had been subjected to great vexation and annoyance by the manner in which the income tax had been assessed and collected, and he wished to ask the Government who was responsible for the fair and just conduct of the numerous officers employed in the collection of the income tax—the surveyors, inspectors, assessors, and collectors? He would not have put that question unless he was convinced that there were serious grievances oppressing the taxpayer, and he must say that he thought the taxpayers were not always sufficiently considered in discussions upon taxation in the House. The last accounts from India showed that there was something like an income tax rebellion in a portion of our territories, and he hoped the House would take care that something of the kind was not got up in this country. He verily believed that at the present moment the strongest feeling of dissatisfaction existed in the country in respect to the manner in which the income tax was collected in this country; and he greatly feared that if the Chancellor of the Exchequer did not take care, he would run the risk of becoming the most unpopular man in the kingdom. The law was very difficult to get at in respect to the income tax; and if the taxpayers wished to know what remedies they ought to take when they were aggrieved, they were obliged to have recourse to an Act of Parliament containing 194 clauses, and then they

123
were referred to an Act which was passed fifty years previously. He did not believe that there was a single Member could give anything like a clear precis of the law on that subject, and he certainly thought that some change ought to be introduced so as to make it more intelligible. Surveyors and collectors of the income tax had a power of summoning, which, however, he believed, was exercised most unfairly against the taxpayers, who were often brought up, at great loss of time and expense, and, after all, their cases were not heard, but postponed till another day, when it had all to be gone through again. The principal grievance, however, arose from the system of speculative surcharges which was so odious in the year 1815, that Parliament ordered the burning of all documents relating to it, and from the tax being, as it was, he believed, in some cases, demanded before it was due. The functionaries who collected the income tax, and among whom there were many honourable and high-minded men, were professedly under the direction of the Inland Revenue Department, but there was a general impression abroad that instructions had been issued from head-quarters that the tax should be screwed up, and that an attempt was being made by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer to make the 9d. tax produce as much as the 10 d. He could hardly believe that that impression was well founded, but he should like to know who was responsible for the mode in which this tax was collected.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Sir, I entirely agree with the hon. Baronet with regard to the importance of the question that he has brought under the notice of the House; but, at the same time, I think it is too important, and certainly too complicated, to allow of its being advantageously disposed of by a merely incidental discussion, but that it may well deserve a more distinct and detailed consideration on the part of this House. However, the hon. Baronet has put to me a question which I shall not decline to answer, while I shall at the same time notice in a very few words the more general statements he has made. In the first place, there is the question how far abuse and grievance prevail in the collection of the income tax; and, in the second place, there is the question as to who is responsible for the collection, and to whom the taxpayer should look in any case where he
124
has suffered hardship through the levying of the tax. I must say, my belief is that abuse is rare, and the grievance, so far as it prevails, is incidental to the nature of the tax very much more than to the conduct of those who are concerned in levying it. The general principle, or at any rate a very common practice, on the part of persons who think themselves aggrieved, is to state their case to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. Whenever I receive a statement of that kind, the case is always made the subject of regular investigation. The result of those investigations has impressed on my mind the conviction that great difficulty attends the collection of the tax, considerable inconvenience is frequently inflicted in the collection of it, and that the difficulty and inconvenience are, in the main, inherent in the nature of the tax itself. I should have less scruple in making this statement if the case stood as the hon. Baronet appears to imagine it stands. He has spoken of assessors, collectors, and surveyors, as constituting a body of persons employed in the collection of the tax. Now, it is not true, with reference to any question of responsibility, that collectors, assessors, and surveyors, constitute a body of persons, and for this reason—they derive their authority from different sources, and they are responsible to different authorities. The collectors and assessors are not appointed by Her Majesty's Government, nor has Her Majesty's Government any control over them whatever, except such as may be supplied by process of law in case of misconduct. The surveyors, on the other hand, are strictly officers of the Government, and are under the control of the Board of Inland Revenue; through that Board they are under the control of the Treasury, and through the Treasury under the control of this House. That is a state of law very peculiar, involving a great deal of possible argument and discussion; and it is one which I need not tell the hon. Baronet is, in the view of Her Majesty's Government, not satisfactory. Our opinion, however, is this, that it would be a more hazardous experiment to alter essentially the basis of our direct taxation, with respect I mean, to the principle of the law which withdraws from the Queen's Government the power of assessing the subject, as a general rule, and places it in the hands of local authorities, independent of the Queen's Government; but that the power of apportioning the taxes, which the law assigns to local au-

125
thorities, and, I think, assigns to them very wisely, is a matter entirely distinct from the question whether the first assessment of the tax ought to be made by officers of the executive Government or by officers appointed by local authorities. I may remind the hon. Baronet that this, so far as we are concerned, is not a new question. I have stated to this House on previous occasions that the Government are ready and disposed to take into their own hands the assessment and the collection of the direct taxes; but the hon. Baronet will, I am sure, agree with me that it would he very unwise in us to provoke a conflict upon that subject with any considerable body of public opinion in the country. We have made application to the various boards of commissioners who are intrusted both with the duty of deter mining the tax to be raised, and likewise with the appointment of those classes of officers. We have made application to these boards to state their views on the question I have referred to—namely, whether in their opinion, it is or is not desirable that the appointment of those officers and the assessment and collection of the tax should be taken into the hands of the Government; and the result has been, although a very large number of these boards are desirous that the charge should be transferred from them to us, so far as the first assessment and the final collection are concerned, yet we have not found that kind of unanimity, or that approximation to unanimity, which would justify our submitting a proposal to the House based upon their recommendations. The hon. Baronet and the House will clearly understand, that if the duty of the assessment and collection are to be assumed by the Government, it must be assumed through the whole country, without exception, or, at all events, throughout large areas; because if we were to undertake these duties here and there, upon minute spots of ground, and the whole system were to be intermixed at every point with the new, considerable; confusion, undoubtedly, and large increase of charge to the public would be the unavoidable result; but, I do not hesitate to say, I think it would be most desirable that those duties of first assessment and collection should, if it were possible, be carried over to the Executive Government, because the consequence of that would be, that every person who felt himself aggrieved by the conduct of any assessor or collector would have a right to such re-
126
dress as the Executive Government could give him, or as, if the Executive Government failed to give him, this House might require.
Another aspect of the question ought to be taken into view. At present it is compulsory upon persons to assume those duties, if they are required to assume them by the local commissioners. It is a duty very often affording insufficient remuneration—frequently clashing, in the most inconvenient manner, with the private occupations of individuals; an I do not hesitate to say, although a good deal of unnecessary hardship is inflicted by the present state of the law upon the taxpayer, still greater hardship is inflicted upon persons who are sometimes called upon and required, against their will, to assume the duty of collecting the tax. I have said, therefore, it appears to me that the duties of those officers, and, in particular, the duties of the Commissioners, are in general extremely well discharged, having reference to the difficulty of the case; but, notwithstanding, I incline to the opinion that that difficulty may be in certain points diminished and limited, if the particular functions I have named were transferred to the Executive Government. I wish now to reply more directly to the question which the hon. Baronet has put relative to the manner in which a taxpayer is to obtain costs for being put to unnecessary inconvenience? Inasmuch as the assessment and collection of the taxes are in the hand of those local commissioners, who afford gratuitous services, and who have not, as far as I am aware, the command of any funds applicable to the payment of costs, I really cannot undertake to say there is any source from which a taxpayer who has had to spend time in matters connected with the assessment and payment of his income tax, can be reimbursed and indemnified for the inconvenience and loss of time. All I can say is, that Parliament, as I have said, has given to the Income Tax Commissioners the power of determining the tax to be levied, without any appeal to the Executive Government, unless in those cases in which parties have chosen originally to come before the Executive Government themselves. There is no appeal from the judgment of the Commissioners to the Executive Government; but, notwithstanding, in cases—I must say that the cases have been exceedingly rare—in cases where the Commissioners appear to have committed

127
some palpable error of principle, such as in any court—if the matter were one of law—would be held to justify an application for a new trial, in such cases I have thought it might be the duty of the Executive Government to give relief; but, as a general rule, the answer to the hon. Baronet must be taken to be this: the discretion to determine, and the authority to determine, the amount of taxes payable is intrusted to the Commissioners, and that there is no appeal from the decision at which they may arrive. With respect to what the hon. Baronet has said in respect of arbitrary surcharges, I have no doubt that loss and inconvenience is frequently inflicted upon individuals; but 1 am bound to say it is inconvenience inherent in the nature of the tax. It is no very easy matter to get at the income of a man. Either you must give most stringent powers to be exercised in the first instance, whereby the public officer may obtain positive evidence, or else you must say to such an officer, "Use due diligence and the best discretion in your power to form an estimate of a man's income upon the basis of the judgment you may so form; and then the matter will go forward for decision. "One of those two courses you must take; and I am bound to say I think the course now taken is, although attended with inconvenience, by far better than the other course, which would be a course absolutely intolerable. The hon. Baronet will see, however, in the absence of the power of demanding direct evidence in the first instance, there is nothing left except the formation of an estimate according to such evidence as may be at the command of the assessors, and the evidence is necessarily, from its character, very imperfect. To arm the taxing officers with powers of investigation, in the first instance, to avoid arbitrary surcharges, would be to institute a system a hundred times more oppressive than the present system should be thought to be, even in the case which might be the worst example of its working. I am afraid the difficulties to which the hon. Baronet refers are in the main inherent in the subject matter. There cannot be, I am bound to say, a more gross misapprehension than the idea which seems to prevail in certain quarters, that because the levy of indirect taxes is a thing grievous and oppressive, we have only to levy direct taxes and we Should at once get rid of all practical difficulties and inequalities. I am afraid,
128
on the contrary, the practical difficulties would be aggravated in a tenfold degree.
MR. BENTINCKsaid, his hon. Friend the Member for Evesham (Sir Henry Wil-loughby) had told the House that in 1815 so odious and detestable was the income tax that all the documents connected with it were ordered to be burnt. He might with truth have added that the same feelings towards it were entertained in 1862; but whether it would be advisable to take the same proceedings with respect to the documents he would not say. The hon. Baronet had spoken of what he happily termed speculative surcharges, which appeared to him (Mr. Bentinck) to involve a most objectionable system. A speculative surcharge, in fact, amounted to this, that in the collection of the income tax an imaginary value was put upon certain property or income, with the chance that that over-valuation might not be disputed, and thus a man might be mulcted in that which he could not be fairly called on to pay. During the recess his attention had been called to another grievance of a serious character. He was told that in cases where persons had appealed against what was justly called speculative surcharge, they had been called upon to pay a fee to the legal functionary who conducted the investigation. Thus the monstrous injustice was imposed upon them, first, of having to defend themselves against an overcharge, and next, of being compelled to pay for so doing. He hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would deny his statement if he (Mr. Bentinck) had been misinformed, and otherwise that he would take the trouble to have some inquiries made on the subject. He did not mean to say that such had been uniformly the practice; but in the metropolis and in other parts of the country, he believed it had prevailed. The right hon. Gentleman had told the House that the difficulties complained of were inherent in the tax. He (Mr. Bentinck) quite agreed with the right hon. Gentleman, but it was a singular admission for the Chancellor of the Exchequer to make. Some years before, the right hon. Gentleman had expressed his reprobation of the tax, though he had since advocated the removal of other taxes less obnoxious. He hoped that when the income tax was under discussion at a future period the right hon. Gentleman would remember what he had just said as to the inconveniences that were inherent in that tax. The right hon. Gen-

129
tleman had further admitted that there was no fund from which the cost to which persons were put in appealing against speculative surcharges could be paid. If that were the case, there ought to be some better regulation than that which at present existed, and under which persons were put to great expense when making those appeals. There ought to be some cheaper and more simple mode of proceeding, and he hoped the right hon. Gentleman opposite would consider the subject, and take steps to put the matter on a very different footing.
Motion agreed to.

FIRES IN THE METROPOLIS.

  SELECT COMMITTEE MOVED FOR.
  Mr. HANKEYsaid, he rose to move for a Select Committee to inquire into the existing state of Legislation and of any existing arrangements for the protection of life and property against fires in the metropolis. He should have preferred, however, to have seen Government taking this step. When at a late period of the previous Session, he expressed his opinion that there was a necessity for inquiry on the subject he received an assurance from his right hon. Friend, then Secretary of State for the Home Department that he considered it to be one well deserving of attention. Having on that occasion stated the grounds on which he thought inquiry necessary he should not repeat them, more especially as he believed the Committee would be conceded. To show the necessity for legislation on the subject, it was sufficient to mention that the law as regarded London remained in the state it was in the year 1774. When they remembered the enormous increase in size of the metropolis and in the value of property since that time, it would appear extraordinary that London should be the only town left without any municipal arrangement or any Act of Parliament that was available to prevent the great risk and damage from fires. The hon. Member concluded by moving for the Committee.
  Mr. SHERIDANsaid, he rose to second the motion. He expected from what had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman lately, the Secretary for the Home Department last Session, that his successor would have brought forward a well-matured plan. For thirty years a few adventurers—a few companies trading for their own benefit— had been left to protect the metropolis against fire. It was now time for the Go
  130
  vernment to either assist in carrying out the object which those companies had in view, or take the matter into their own hands. If they did not, the metropolis would be left to take care of itself; for a resolution had been passed recently by a Committee of the fire-insurance offices, in which they stated that they were not inclined to continue to protect the metropolis against fire on the present terms. The property which, was exposed to so great a risk was that from which the great bulk of the metropolitan revenue was raised by the Government.
  SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, it was agreed last Session that this was a very fit subject for inquiry before a Parliamentary Committee, and he should give his ready assent to the motion. It was, however, entirely distinct from the subject of fire insurance, and it would be desirable for the Committee to keep clear of that question. No pledge had been given last Session that her Majesty's Government would prepare a measure for taking out of the hands of the London fire offices the regulation of the means which were in operation for the extinction of fires. But when the House remembered that the law had not been changed since 1774, which imposed upon parishes the obligation of keeping a fire-engine—an obligation which in all but a few cases was most inefficiently performed—there was room for inquiry whether some change in the law was not called for under the altered circumstances of the present day. His right hon. Friend (Sir George Lewis) promised last year that the Government would ascertain during the recess what arrangements were in force elsewhere for extinguishing fires. He had! obtained a complete statement of the measures taken in Paris for this purpose, and, although many of these arrangements were inapplicable to London, they might suggest some improvements that deserved consideration by the Select Committee. It was impossible not to bear testimony to the very efficient character of the Fire Brigade of the metropolis, which, under the management of Mr. Braidwood, who lost his life in the courageous discharge of his duty, reflected much credit upon the fire offices, and was productive of much advantage to the public. Still it could not be forgotten that the offices had a direct interest in keeping up the Fire Brigade in an efficient state for the protection of property, for the destruction of which by tire they would have to pay. He was glad to assent to the appointment of the Com-

  131
  mittee, and he trusted that its inquiries might lead to an improvement in the existing law and practice.
  Motion agreed to.
  Select Committee appointed, "To inquire into the existing state of legislation, and of any existing arrangements, for the Protection of Life And Property against Fires in the Metropolis."

EXCHEQUER BILLS BILL.

  LEAVE. FIRST READING.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER:I have to ask for leave to bring in a Bill relating to two points, neither of which is altogether new, nor will the Bill create any difficulty in the practice of this House. The first provision is one to amend an Act of last year with respect to the issue or rather the reissue of what are termed Supply Exchequer bills. The necessity for this provision arose from the Act of last year. The principle on which these Exchequer bills are issued is this— that they are capable of reissue within the period of their currency, if they come hack into the hands of the Government. Formerly the period of currency was one year only, and consequently any reissue of Exchequer bills under the powers given by law only affected the finances of a single year, and was a matter only capable of being taken in view by the House at the time when the Bill for the annual issue of Exchequer bills was brought under the notice of the House. But last year we passed an Act of, I think, a very beneficial character, under which Exchequer bills are not renewed from year to year. Although the interest is, as before, paid annually, the instrument and the Bill itself will have a currency of five years. It was justly observed last year by the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Henley) that the power of reissue under the old law ought not to be extended over a period of five years, because it might so happen that a very large number of Exchequer bills might be taken up and accumulate in the hands of the Government, and that it might be in the power of the Government, before the five years were expired, to make a large reissue of these instruments of public credit without the direct control or cognizance of Parliament. I propose to re-establish the provision of the old law, and to limit the power of reissue to the year within which the bills shall be issued or paid in. The effect will be to apply the principle of the old law to the amended law now in force. The other provision of the Bill relates to a subject
  132
  which has been often under the consideration of this House, namely, the power now possessed by the Government, through the medium of the Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt, of funding Exchequer bills of various descriptions. That power is, in point of fact, twofold. It applies to those Exchequer bills which are called Deficiency, or Consolidated Fund Bills, instruments of credit which only pass between the Treasury and the Bank, and never go into the hands of the public. The power of funding bills of that description is, in my judgment, altogether "abusive." Whether that power was originally intended to be given or not, or whether it came into the hands of the Government by the unforeseen operation of certain words in an Act of Parliament, is a question which it is not now necessary to examine. Suffice it to say that it is the universal opinion of the officers of the Government, and of those Members of this House who have applied their minds to this subject, that the power to which I have alluded is altogether "abusive" and mischievous. It has not been exercised for a great length of time, and I propose by this Bill to extinguish it altogether. There is another power which I will not describe in such strong terms—the power of funding Supply Exchequer bills—meaning those Exchequer bills which are in the hands of the. public. It has been found convenient, at periods of extended expenditure and of great financial pressure, that the Commissioners for the Reduction of the National Debt should themselves become possessed of certain amounts of Exchequer bills, and a power exists by law under which it is competent to these Commissioners, acting with the authority of the Treasury, to convert them at certain fixed rates into permanent stock. The effect is to enable the Executive Government to make additions to the funded debt of the country without the authority of Parliament. So far as I know the greater operations of the Executive Government in the exercise of this power have been useful and beneficial operations, and I, therefore, distinguish as broadly as possible between these operations and those which have taken place with regard to Deficiency and Consolidated Fund Bills which have been neither useful nor beneficial. I do not desire that the beneficial and useful powers to which I have adverted shall be brought to an end like the others, but the effect of the Bill will be to bring these operations

  133
  under the direct view and control of Parliament. It is not that the power is a bad power, but that it is not necessary to be in the hands of the Executive, and from its nature I doubt not that Parliament will give its approval to the principle that such measures ought not to be taken without the approval of the Legislature.
  SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYobserved that as far as he could judge the measure was one of a beneficial character. He however, regretted it did not go further. As he understood the important principle of the Bill was that there should be no change made in the unfunded and the funded debt, without the authority of Parliament. It appeared to him that that was a sound principle, and one which should be at once agreed to. Some years ago he contended that the Government could create a funded debt by such operations as those referred to by the right hon. Gentleman, and he was put out of court by a flat denial. The Committee, however, would deceive itself if it thought that the funding of Exchequer bills could not take place in another way than that described, He alluded to the mode in which Exchequer bills held by savings banks could be funded. Unless, therefore, the right hon. Gentleman dealt also with those bills, and brought all within the cognizance of Parliament, he would not have completely disposed of the question. When, however, he had the pleasure of seeing the measure of the right hon. Gentleman he should be better able to form a sound judgment upon it. He was very glad to find the right hon. Gentleman resolved to legislate on the subject.
  Motion agreed to.
  Bill to amend An Act, entitled, "An Act to amend the Law relating to Supply Exchequer Bills, and to charge the same on the Consolidated Fund," and to repeal the provisions of an Act by which authority is given to the Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury to fund Exchequer Bills, ordered to be brought in by Mr. CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER and Mr. PEEL.
  Bill presented, and read 1o
  House adjourned at Six o'clock.

UNITED STATES—IMPRISONMENT OF BRITISH SUBJECTS.
THE EARL OF CARNARVONsaid, he wished to put to the noble Lord the Foreign Secretary a question of some importance. It would be in the recollection of the House that on Friday night last he had put a Question to the Foreign Secretary with reference to a British subject who had been arrested and detained in prison for a considerable time in the United States, and—not to use a harsher term—subjected to considerable ill-treatment under the warrant of Mr. Seward. Since that time he had received fresh information relating to other cases, which were still worse than that which he had before mentioned, and he was anxious to have whatever information the noble Earl opposite could furnish with regard to them. He was informed that three British subjects were at this moment detained in prison in the Federal States, where they had been between four and five months, on secret charges, without a single allegation of any sort being made, far less proved, against them. He was informed that no inquiry had been made into their cases, and they had even been refused an inquiry, unless they consented, in the first instance, to take the oath of allegiance to the United States. If this information which he had received were correct, and these persona had been

103
so illegally arrested and detained, there was not a moment to lose in obtaining an explanation of the exact position of affairs. The prisons of the United States at this moment were crowded with prisoners. Into one of the prisons—Fort Lafayette—had been crowded a great number of prisoners of every rank and position—and among them were men of substance and intelligence, who had been brought up in affluence and great social refinement. There were representatives there of all the liberal professions—members of the judicature, members of the press, some ten or eleven representatives of the State of Maryland, and men of all the best classes of American citizens, who had been arrested, dragged from prison to prison, suffering every hardship, and, at this moment, they were confined for an indefinite period. With these American citizens in American prisons that House, of course, had nothing to do; they were not concerned in the matter, and he should he the last man to ask the House or the Government to interfere; but, in so far as their condition threw light on the condition of British subjects there confined, it was an important point, and he felt sure that neither the House nor the country could be indifferent to it. The state of the prisoners he understood to be this: In this fortress there were four small casemates and two larger battery-rooms in which prisoners were confined—all the chambers being constructed of brick or stonework, and lighted by small embrasures or large folding doors, which ensured an atmosphere alternately saturated with damp, alternately suffocating from heat. In one of these chambers, fourteen feet by twenty-four feet, there were confined—at least, that was the case a few weeks ago—twenty-three political prisoners, of whom two-thirds were placed in irons; and in one of the battery-rooms between thirty and forty persons were confined. During the day there was often too much ventilation, though, at the occasional caprice of the guards, blinds and shutters were placed against the windows; but at night the ventilation was so imperfect that the air became foul and oppressive. In every sense the accommodation was bad. In very few cases were there beds or bedding; in none the necessaries, or decencies even, of prison life. The food was of the coarsest description. Even the water supplied for drinking was said to be foul, while for other purposes only salt water
104
was provided. In one of the worst of these places, where prisoners were crowded together in this manner, where there was no possible accommodation for cleanliness and for decency, the state of things was said to be something very little better than the middle passage. In one of these battery-rooms fever had broken out and was spreading rapidly to the neighbourhood. It was in these prisons that these British subjects were confined. He had the fact upon authority which he could not doubt, though, of course, he could not state it on his own personal responsibility; still the authority was such that he could entertain no doubt on the subject. He had been furnished with an account of the names and conditions of the persons so confined. The first was Charles Green, a British merchant, long resident at Savannah, who came from Liverpool. As a proof that his connection with this country had been maintained, and that he was bond fide a British subject, he had a son now at Liverpool at school. The second was Andrew Lowe, also a British merchant at Savannah, who at this moment had two daughters at school at Brighton. He could not give the name of the third; but he was described as an Irish navvy. He was a labouring man, who went over from Ireland in October, 1860, in order to find an uncle engaged in some railway contracts at Harper's Ferry, and he was found by the Federalists in that neighbourhood. They offered him the oath of allegiance, and when he declared himself a British subject they treated the plea with derision. The oath of allegiance was proffered to him again, and on his refusal he was dragged to prison. The friendless condition of this man and his ignorance of the proper means to be adopted, entitled him to a double amount of protection. Now, as to the condition of these persons, it was impossible to say more than this, that they were still in confinement. It was impossible to say whether there was a more or less of hardship in individual cases. But it was not likely that the Federal Government would treat British subjects confined in these prisons with more consideration than it would show to natives of the country. If the persons thus arrested were guilty, let them, after a fair trial, undergo the punishment the law awarded for their offence; but they should not be detained in prison for an indefinite period, and on secret charges. They ought to be brought to

105
trial, and have a hearing. He understood that to all these prisoners, without exception, the same offer was made, that as a preliminary condition to any judicial inquiry into their cases they should take the oath of allegiance to the United States. The fact of these men being still in prison after such an offer was a presumption that they were really British subjects; and, if so, under these circumstances the Government of this country was bound to extend protection to them. He did not wish to go further into this I subject; he would rather leave it in the hands of Her Majesty's Government. But he should wish to know from the noble Earl what information he had on the subject, and what steps he had thought light to take.
EARL RUSSELL:I conclude that the noble Earl has hardly read the papers that have been laid on the table of the House by command of Her Majesty; for the noble Earl would there have found a Correspondence between Lord Lyons and Mr. Seward, and also between Her Majesty's Government and Lord Lyons, on this subject. I think that the noble Earl in the statement he has made hardly seems to have taken into account the very critical circumstances in which the Government of the United States is placed. In the spring of last year nine of the States in the scheme of Confederation declared war against the Federal Government. In such circumstances as these it is usual for all Governments to imprison on suspicion persons who they consider are taking part in the war against them. In a case which happened not many years ago—in 1848—when there was a conspiracy in Ireland for the purpose of overturning the authority of Her Majesty's Government, the Secretary of State applied to the other House of Parliament for authority to arrest persons on suspicion of treasonable practices—that is, for the suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act—and in the papers presented to Parliament at that date there are two cases in which the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland ordered the arrest or two American citizens. In the cases of these two persons representations were made to Her Majesty's Government by the Government of the United States. My noble Friend Lord Palmerston, at that time Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, replied, that with regard to those persons the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland had full information on which he relied that those
106
persons were engaged in practices tending to subvert the authority of the Crown, and were aiding treasonable practices that were being pursued in that part of the kingdom. Those persons, I believe, were never brought to trial—I never heard of their being tried. They were arrested and detained solely by the exercise of the powers vested in the Crown authorized by Parliament. No doubt complaints have been made by certain British subjects in America that they had been arrested on suspicion, only on the order and by the authority of the Secretary of State of the Federal Government. I directed Lord Lyons to represent these cases to Mr. Seward, and as, especially with regard to one of them, it appeared that there had been very light grounds for the suspicion, I thought an inquiry into them ought not to be delayed. I do not vindicate the act of the American Government in any of these cases; whether it had good or only light grounds for its suspicions, I am not here to say. If I thought they had only light grounds of suspicion, it was my business to represent that to the Government of the United States; but it is not my business to undertake the defence of the American Government in this House. The American Minister replied that the constitution of the United States gives the President a power, under certain circumstances, to arrest persons on suspicion and confine them in prison during his will and pleasure. This question has been much debated in America. Some high legal authorities say that the writ of Habeas Corpus cannot be suspended by the President alone, but only by an Act of Congress; but, on the other hand, some eminent lawyers have maintained the contrary opinion. I have received within the last few days a pamphlet written by a gentleman at the head of the bar of Philadelphia, in which he contends with great ingenuity that the meaning of the clause of the Constitution of the United States is that; the Habeas Corpus can be suspended on the authority of the President alone. Now, the question has been brought before Congress itself, and a resolution was proposed on the subject. But it was contended on the part of the Government that it was; the prerogative of the President, and on a division a large majority decided to lay the question aside, and thereby left the; President to act for himself. So much for the power given by the Constitution of the United States. With regard to the particular acts which Mr. Seward, under

107
the sanction of the President, has authorized, in the arrests of British subjects, as Well as American citizens, I am not here to defend them. But I think the authority to make such arrests is one that must belong to some person in the Government of the United States, if it believes that the parties are engaged in a treasonable conspiracy against it, either by furnishing arms to the enemy or acting as spies. It is an authority which must rest somewhere in cases of great peril. As to many of these cases, I believe there has been what was very likely to occur—some abuse of an extraordinary power; there have been some unnecessary suspicion and some ill-treatment. But I do not find that in any of these cases there has existed any disposition on the part of the American Government to prevent the British consuls from having access to prisoners who claimed their interference, or to prevent them from stating their complaints to Lord Lyons; nor do I find that Lord Lyons has been slow in representing them to the American Government. Lord Lyons has represented that attending to those cases has taken up a great part of his time. Nor can I say that Mr. Seward has refused to listen to those complaints. He has very often stated that he had information on which he could depend that these persons were engaged in treasonable correspondence against the Government of the United States. Whether these parties wore or were not engaged in treasonable practices against that Government is a question upon which we cannot enter. But the noble Earl states upon his own authority that the arrests were illegal, and that those persons are now kept in prison illegally. That is more certainly than I could venture to state. I could hardly venture to say that the President of the United States has not the power, supposing persons are guilty of being engaged in treasonable correspondence against the authority of the United States, to keep them in prison without bringing them to trial; and it would require a stronger denial of the authority of the law officers of the United States than I could presume upon to say that the President of the United States has not that power. With regard to the particular cases which the noble Earl has brought forward, I am unable to say whether or not some of those persons may not have been engaged in such correspondence. We all know that during the time in which the United States have been divided there has been much sympa-
108
thy shown in this country on one side and on the other. Some have shown a strong sympathy with the North, and others have shown a strong sympathy with the South. It is quite impossible for the Government to say, without knowing the circumstances accurately, whether these persons may not have been engaged with the Confederates. With regard to some of those cases, I thought the circumstances were such that it was quite evident that the persons arrested had not been engaged in any conspiracy. There was one gentleman who happened to be a partner in a firm, the other partner of which had great connections with the South, and had strong Southern sympathies; but the gentleman himself was a firm supporter of the Union. It was the mere circumstance of letters being sent to certain persons through the firm that induced his arrest. I thought that a most arbitrary and unjust proceeding. Mr. Seward said he thought the circumstances were enough to induce suspicion, but that as soon as it was ascertained that there was no ground for that suspicion, this gentleman was released. A mere release, however, was far from being adequate compensation to him, because for a person in a most respectable position and wholly innocent of offence to be arrested and confined to a prison for several days is a great grievance, and one for which he is entitled to compensation. But beyond the right to complain and the constant interference of Lord Lyons, the British Minister, whenever there is a case which he thinks calls for such interference, I do not know what, under the circumstances, we can do. I believe the gentleman to whom I allude had stated that he expected his own friends would procure his release. The noble Earl has mentioned three cases. I was not aware of the cases the noble Earl would mention; but with regard to Mr. Green, this is a statement he made on the 5th of September—
"I desire no action to be taken by my friends in England in consequence of my arrest. Lord Lyons has represented my case, and it will receive full investigation in due time. Meanwhile I am in the hands of the officers of this fort."
There have been other cases of arrest and imprisonment under circumstances involving great hardship. There have been many cases of arbitrary imprisonment, and these cases, of arbitrary imprisonment have taken place under a Government which is engaged in a civil war, perhaps one of the most serious, perhaps one of the most for-

109
midable, in which any country was ever engaged. It is not for us to decide the right or wrong of the quarrel; but we must admit that all the means that are used by civilized nations in warfare against each other are open to the Americans, whether in the character of belligerents or whether as engaged in civil war. With regard to the particular cases, I believe that, to whatever cause they may be owing— whether to the novelty of the circumstances in North America or to the inexperience of the persons intrusted with the duty of exercising this power, or whether it is owing to this, that arbitrary power can never be safely intrusted to any one, or if intrusted is most liable to be abused—to whatever cause it is owing, I believe there have been and will be many cases of arbitrary arrest. But in every case where a British subject is arrested, and a reasonable case is made out on his behalf, I shall always be ready to instruct Lord Lyons to bring the ease under the consideration of the authorities of the United States Government. Lord Lyons has never been wanting in his duty. He has, I think, shown himself a vigilant British Minister in that respect; and 1 hope your Lordships will not be of opinion that these cases have been neglected by the Government of this country.
THE EARL OF DERBY:I am sorry, my Lords, to find that the noble Earl is not able to answer the statement made by my noble Friend, and that he seemed to cast some censure upon my noble Friend for having brought this subject to your Lord ships' attention with a strong expression of opinion as to the illegality of these arrests. Now, I must say that it was difficult to listen to the statement of my noble Friend, borne out as it is by the statement of the noble Earl himself, without feeling excited to the highest degree of indignation at the gross outrages thus inflicted upon British subjects. I am willing to admit to the noble Earl that every allowance should be made for the circumstances of difficulty in which the American Government is placed, and the exigencies of the civil war in which they are engaged; but I must say that the course they have pursued with respect to British subjects in America, notwithstanding the remonstrances from time to time addressed to them by Lord Lyons—and f am sure that no thought was further from my noble Friend's mind than to cast the slightest censure upon Lord Lyons, who seems to have performed his difficult duties at Wash-
110
ington with firmness and with prudence—I say that the treatment of British subjects by the American Government has been such as highly to try the patience of this country. I think we are justified in using strong language upon the course thus pursued by the American Government, considering more especially that on some former occasions Her Majesty's present advisers have not been slack to assert or slow to vindicate the Civis Romanus doctrine professed by the noble Earl now at the head of the Government. In this instance, however, the Civis Romanus does not appear to have derived a great deal of benefit from his citizenship. The noble Earl seems to have derived some instruction from his intercourse with Mr. Seward; for in the course of his correspondence with Mr. Seward the noble Earl seems to have invoked against these proceedings—and very properly—the protection of American law, declaring that he had no right to resent, with regard to British subjects, that which the law sanctioned with reganl to American citizens; but the question was, did the law sanction these proceedings? The noble Earl, however, acquiesced contentedly when the American Secretary of State replied that he did not feel bound to accept from a British Minister his explanation of the American Constitution. Such was the substance of the courteous reply vouchsafed to the noble Earl. Now, I wish to ask a question, raised by my noble Friend, which the noble Earl very conveniently thought it unnecessary to answer. He states that Congress has passed a resolution affirming the course taken by the President in suspending the Habeas Corpus. [Earl RUSSELL: Virtually affirming it.] Well, virtually affirming it. No law can be shown to support the President's exercise of the power; and the noble Earl's statement is that a number of the most learned and able Judges in the States have denied that he possesses any such power. The action of the Judges at the present moment is subject to rather unusual restrictions. At present, therefore, there exists no appeal with respect to the law of the United States; but the noble Earl says that virtually Congress has affirmed that the President possesses by the Constitution, whenever he thinks fit, the power of suspending the Habeas Corpus writ, without reference to Congress or to any authority other than his own discretion. Certainly, for a very free Government and

111
pure democracy, I do not think that it is a very happy state of law to live under, and it does not seem to afford a very strong illustration of the superior happiness which the American people enjoy over those whose lot is cast under the old monarchies. The noble Earl has shown that in Ireland the writ of Habeas Corpus has been suspended by the authority of Parliament, and that the Lord Lieutenant has exercised the right thus conferred upon him, even in the ease of American citizens. But what I want to know is, can he show us any British or any American precedent where upon such an arrest it has been required as the condition, not of release, but of being brought to trial, that the person arrested should forswear allegiance to his own country? The noble Earl has not denied that this individual was called upon, as a condition of being brought to trial, to forfeit his nationality, and that he was only laughed at when he stated that he was a British subject; nor did the noble Earl deny that he was thereupon remitted to prison. Even admitting that we have no right to question the American interpretation of American law, admitting the doctrine that the President may at any time, under circumstances of suspicion, exercise the power of suspending the writ of Habeas Corpus without the sanction of Congress, I think the noble Earl will be at a loss to point out any law or precedent by which a person may be called upon to forfeit his nationality and swear allegiance to another country before he enjoys the privilege of being brought to trial.
EARL RUSSELL:What has fallen from the noble Earl renders necessary a word or two of explanation from me. With regard to the first point, I stated, so far as I recollect, that a motion had been brought before Congress declaring that under the existing circumstances the power of suspending the writ of Habeas Corpus could not be exercised without the sanction of Congress. I am not versed in the forms of Congress, but I believe that according to our forms it would be said that the Congress resolved to pass to the Order of the Day. That amounts to a virtual confirmation of the power, and I do not know that we can look to any other authority. The President exercises this power, and Congress declines to interfere. With regard to the three cases mentioned by the noble Earl (the Earl of Carnarvon) I did not, of course, know
112
that he would refer to them, or I would have taken pains to inquire into the facts of each case. I do not, however, recollect any instance in which a person was called upon to take the oath of allegiance to the United States, except one, and that was a case in which the person arrested had given notice of his intention to become a citizen of the United States, The form, I believe, is that the person who wishes to become a citizen of the United States must give three months' notice of his intention to do so. When that time arrives he must take an oath, not only of fidelity to the United States, but he must also forswear all other allegiance, and more especially allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Victoria. The gentleman who was arrested made an application to the British Consul; to whom the reply of Mr. Seward was, ''This gentleman on account of whom you write has renounced all allegiance, and especially allegiance to Queen Victoria." The matter was further inquired into, and it was found that Mr. Seward was wrong in his facts; that although this gentleman had given notice, and although he had stated in a court of justice he intended to forswear his allegiance to Queen Victoria, yet the requisite forms had not been completed, and, therefore, he remained still a British subject. Lord Lyons remarked that if that were not so the gentleman would be placed in such a position as to be debarred from seeking the protection either of the United States or of the British Government.
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMOREsaid, that without entering on a discussion of the general subject, he desired to have an explicit answer to one question, namely, whether the noble Earl at the head of Foreign Affairs approved of the course which had been adopted of tendering the oath of allegiance to a British subject as a condition to his being brought to trial? For his own part he could conceive that no greater insult could be offered to any man than to be first arrested by a foreign Government, and then be required by that Government to forswear allegiance to his own and allegiance to theirs before the charge against him could be investigated. He trusted that a distinct answer to that question would be given by the noble Earl.
EARL RUSSELL:My answer is that, as far as I know, the American Government have never tendered the oath of allegiance to the United States to a British subject, knowing him to be a British subject. Mr. Seward, when told by Lord

113
Lyons that this person who had been arrested was a British subject, said that he was quite unaware of that fact, and he would take care that the oath of allegiance was not put to him. I repeat, that I believe the oath of allegiance to the United States has never been administered to a British subject when he was known to be such.
THE EARL OF DERBY:My noble Friend's question referred to the alternative that was given of taking an oath of allegiance or of not being brought to trial.

UNITED STATES—BLOCKADE OF THE SOUTHERN PORTS.—QUESTION
THE EARL OF MALMESBURY:I have given notice to the noble Bail the Foreign Secretary, that I would put a Question to him respecting the papers which he proposed the other night to lay upon the table. In asking whether among those papers we shall find any accounts from the Admiral on the North American station, or from our consuls at the various ports in the United States, as to the exact state of the blockade of the Southern ports, the noble Earl may be sure I am not asking in any spirit of cavil at the policy which Her Majesty's Government has pursued, and I am glad to add my humble tribute I of approbation, and to say, what my noble Friend behind me (the Earl of Derby) said the other night, that I think the noble Ear has carried out that policy with great judgment, and has fully maintained the honour and dignity of this country. I am the more anxious not to be misunderstood because, in the strangest and most unaccountable manner, my noble Friend near me (the Earl of Derby) has been misunderstood and misrepresented by the leading journal, both to-day and on a previous day; and although my noble Friend gave that journal an opportunity of retracing its steps by explaining what be said in his speech on Thursday night as to the question of the blockade of American ports, yet this morning there is in that newspaper an article warning the public against the advice given by my noble Friend upon that occasion. My noble Friend never used a single expression that could be construed into a desire to press upon the public mind the desirability of breaking the blockade. Nor would I do I so; for it would be inconsistent with what I conceive to be true policy to sty one word to induce the Government to take that course one moment before they thought
114
that it should be taken. It must be a question of time and judgment with the Government; and, therefore, I wish to repeat that no persons on this side of the House are pressing the Government to pursue any other line of conduct than that which they seem now to be pursuing. But, although that may he my view of the right policy to be followed, I wish to know what are the real facts, and what is exactly the state of the blockade? Possibly there may be a great deal of exaggeration in the statements we hear, but I have been told — for I have not the honour of knowing the gentleman—that Mr. Mason, who, as we; are all aware, has recently come over here to represent the Southern States, openly declares that no less than 600 or 700 ships have broken the blockade and passed in and out of the Southern ports. It is desirable, therefore, that Parliament and the country should be properly prepared to form some judgment upon the matter. As I said, it is a question of time and judgment for the Government, knowing the facts, when they shall feel called upon to vindicate international law. I am aware that under the particular circumstances of the case, and seeing what events might soon follow, perhaps putting an end to the struggle altogether, it would be impolitic to hasten our steps with regard to this blockade; but still we should know what are the real facts. It is evidently impossible, after a certain time, when the opinion of all the great Powers of Europe has been strongly pronounced, speaking of the blockade as not legal according to international law, and after the statement of Mr. Mason, if true, it will be impossible for the whole world to continue to suffer the inconveniences which the present state of things exposes them to. I would ask the noble Earl whether among the papers we shall have an exact account of the state of the blockade as given by the Admiral and our consuls. A great deal has been said about the Declaration of 1856. I am sorry that Lord Clarendon is not present, as I do not like to speak upon a subject of this nature in the absence of the person who I believe originated the Declaration; but it may be remembered that at the time I expressed my opinion as to the policy of that Declaration. I think, too, that if we were to look back to the debates of that period we should find that the noble Earl, now Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, in some degree at least coincided with me. I did not believe that any article of that

115
Declaration would eventually be carried out when a great war should take place. I warned the country that although it was extremely creditable to the Christian feeling and philanthropy of the noble Earl who originated that Declaration, yet we could not rely upon its being adhered to throughout a great war. I did not think you could lay down that strict rule as to blockades, and we now find that it is a wise policy not to enforce that part of the Declaration. Neither do I believe you can carry out the Declaration as far as it relates to privateers. I do not believe that a great maritime country should be bound by such a Declaration; but, at all events, I am certain that in a great war circumstances would be too strong for an adherence to it. Supposing that the two great maritime Powers of England and France were at war; at first the Declaration might be adhered to, and a sort of duel would be observed between the Royal navies of both countries: but supposing the events which have before occurred were to happen again—that the English fleets destroyed the greater portion of the French war navy, and blockaded the remainder in their ports—could it be believed that that warlike people, being brought to bay, would not have recourse to the law of self-preservation, and adopt any means to drive away the hostile fleets from their coasts, and loosen the gripe which strangled them? The only means would be to issue letters of marque all over the world, to prey upon our commerce, and compel us to withdraw our ships to protect our trade. Then, again, we know how far we can rely upon the principle of arbitration included in the Declaration of 1856. We know that in 1859 we tried that principle—to prevent war by intermediation. I had the honour to be in office at that time, in the Government of my noble Friend, and I know that principle was constantly appealed to by the great Powers; but human passions were too strong, and Austrians and Italians were too angry to listen to mediators. I mention these things because I think it is well to bear them in mind at the present time.

ITALY—MURDER OF DR. M'CARTHY

  QUESTION.
  THE EARL OF MALMESBURY:Before I sit down I will take this opportunity of asking the noble Earl another Question,
  116
  of which I have given him notice—namely, whether he has received any information respecting the assassination at Pisa of an English gentleman named Dr. M'Carthy, who appears to have been stabbed in his own house by an Italian porter, the murderer making his escape through the alleged gross negligence and indifference of the police authorities?
  EARL RUSSELL:In the first place I must say that Her Majesty's Government are fully sensible of the support which was given them by the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Derby) when he spoke on the first night of the Session in regard to the conduct we have pursued in relation to the United States. It certainly does give a great additional weight to the course taken by this country when all political parties agree in supporting the line of policy adopted by the Government, and the British nation must derive great confidence from a knowledge of that fact. Nothing could be more fair and candid than the course followed on Thursday night by the noble Earl. As to this question of the blockade, it is as the noble Earl says, one of very great importance, and I will not presume to enter at this moment into so grave a discussion. I gave orders early in the contest that Admiral Milne should furnish Her Majesty's Government with every information in his power, and I also sent to our consuls at the different ports with a view to obtain every information from them. When the blockade was first mentioned to me by Mr. Adams, I stated to him the difficulty which the United Stales Government would experience in maintaining a blockade over 3,000 miles of coast. Mr. Adams's reply was, that there were but seven ports which could admit large vessels, and which it would be necessary to blockade, and that therefore the difficulty was not so great as it at first sight appeared. With respect to the allegation that a very large number of vessels have eluded the blockade, I asked Mr. Mason myself what was the tonnage of those vessels to which reference was made; and to that question he was unable to give me an answer. But the noble Earl will see that that is a matter of very great importance, because those seven ports are connected by numerous creeks with other and minor ports, and small vessels run in and out of those creeks, carrying very small cargoes, and can hardly, from their insignificant character, he regarded as breaking the blockade. Before the meeting of Parliament

  117
  I gave instructions that the various papers connected with this subject should be collected together. That has now been done, the papers have been printed, and they will very shortly be delivered to your Lordships by Her Majesty's command. With out, then, pronouncing any judgment on this question, I must repeat that it is one of the utmost importance. On the one hand, if we said that anything that was called a blockade, however ineffective, should he held to be a legal blockade—or, on the other hand, if we were to incur the danger of a dispute with the United States without having the clearest and strongest ground for it—in either case a great evil would be produced. I therefore trust that your Lordships will reserve your judgments until you see all the evidence.
  The noble Earl has asked me a question with respect to the dreadful murder which has taken place at Pisa. The British residents in Tuscany have made a representation as to the negligence of the authorities and the inadequacy of the means of detecting and punishing crime in Pisa. That representation was sent to Turin, to the Prime Minister, Baron Ricasoli, who promised to take it into consideration, with a view to devising such measures as may render the police more effective in that district. With respect to the arrest of the assassin and bringing him to justice, the report made by the consul is, that the first proceedings have been more speedy than is usual in that country. But. it appears that these porters are generally a very ill-disciplined and violent class of men, that crime is rife among them, and that the British residents in Florence have complained of the great want of some regular tariff of charges by which disputes, such as gave rise to this murder, might be prevented. This has been represented to the authorities, and I trust that a better state of things will before long be established in Pisa.
  EARL GRANVILLE:I cannot allow the remarks of the noble Earl who spoke last but one to pass without making some observation upon them. The other day the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Derby) referring to the Declaration adopted at the Conference of Paris in 1856 in relation to the inviolability of enemy's goods in neutral ships, said that that Declaration, although it bad not been embodied in a treaty, was still morally and honourably binding on all the Governments which had agreed to it. Now, that
  118
  view of the matter is entirely the view which is taken by Her Majesty's Government; and I stated the other evening that in the event of war that Declaration would be fully binding on those Powers which had assented to it. Now, the noble Earl who spoke last but one (the Earl of Malmesbury) on this subject has expressed not only his disapprobation of the Declaration, but, what is a very different thing, his conviction that in the case of war Her Majesty's Government would he induced to disregard its obligatory nature. Now, I think that such a belief going forth as the opinion of one of your Lordships who has occupied the position of Foreign Secretary in this country may have such an injurious effect on the minds of foreign Powers that I put it to the noble Earl himself whether he will not now modify what may have been the hasty expression which escaped him.
  THE EARL OF MALMESBURY:What I intended to say was, that supposing a great country like England or France, after a desperate war, driven to the last extremity, and struggling with another Power for its very existence, I do not believe that either a warlike people like the French, or a nation of the same spirit as our own, would be restrained by the paper declaration made at Paris in 1856; that the law of self-preservation would overrule all other feelings, and that the nation would take any step which they thought proper for saving themselves and the country from the extreme danger and desperate condition in which they might be placed.
  EARL GRANVILLE:I was sorry to hear such observations from the noble Earl, and I sincerely hope and trust that this country will never be reduced to such an extremity as will lead her to disregard any obligation which is morally and honourably binding upon her.
  EARL RUSSELL:I certainly have expressed the opinion that I did not quite approve the Declaration made at Paris; but, at the same time, I said that once it had been entered into it ought to be respected.

MEMORIAL TO THE LATE PRINCE CONSORT.—QUESTION.
THE EARL OF DERBY:Is the noble Earl opposite prepared to give an answer to the Question which I put to him on Friday. Whether the Government have

119
come to any decision with reference to the proposed memorial to the late Prince Consort?
EARL GRANVILLE:I have only to state that Her Majesty's Government gave no particular sanction to the proposed memorial to the late Prince Consort, the project having originated in the universal and spontaneous feeling throughout the country that such a memorial should be raised. The money for the purpose having been voluntarily contributed, the Government certainly would not now be able to take any share in controlling the wishes of the subscribers, and it would be quite out of their province so to interfere. At the same time, many Members of the Government have individually given their sanction and concurrence to the proceeding. I have myself been in communication with the Lord Mayor on the subject, and he authorized me to say that the Memorial Committee are fully resolved, as soon as the sum of money which appears to be sufficient for carrying out their object has been raised—which is likely to be the case very shortly—to request Her Majesty to state in what form most agreeable to her own feelings the money so subscribed can be best appropriated; and, although I have no authority for saying it, I have reason to believe that if this application be made to Her Majesty she will not shrink from giving her views on the subject.
House adjourned at a quarter past
Six o'clock, till To-morrow,
half-past Ten o'clock.