Sitting of 10 March 1862

MINUTES.
NEW MEMBER SWORN.—For Canterbury, Henry Alexander Butler-Johnstone, esq. PUBLIC BILLS.—1o Consolidated Fund (£18,000,000); Turnpike Tolls Exemption (Scotland); Public Houses (Scotland) Acts Amendment; Moveable Property (Scotland).
2o Transfer of Stocks (Ireland); Crown Suits (Isle of Man).

DISTRESS IN THE WEST OF IRELAND.

  QUESTION.
  MR. GREGORYsaid, he wished to ask the Chief Secretary for Ireland, Whether any Report has been furnished to him by the Poor Law Inspector accompanying the steamer that has been sent to the west coast of Ireland to relieve distress in that district; if so, whether he will lay the Report before the House; and whether relief has been afforded, of what character, and to what extent?
  SIR ROBERT PEELin reply said, the Report in question had been received from the Poor Law Inspector, Dr. Brodie, who went in the steam-vessel Geyser, and who had visited different islands on the west coast of Mayo and Galway, and there was no objection whatever to laying that Report on the table of the House. With regard to the latter question of the hon. Member relative to the relief afforded, he (Sir Robert Peel) was in a position to say that independently of the islands being in an exceptional position, separated as they were from the system of workhouses, the island of Arran was held by the Digby family, and they had given relief in provisions and meal, and also in coals, for the poorer inhabitants. He was also enabled to state that a relief committee had been formed by the Protestant clergyman and the dispensing medical officer for giving employment in that island; also that the medical officer was authorized to give invalids and people who were bed-ridden tea, sugar, wine, and also fuel. He was also enabled to state that in that island, from the reports of the medical inspector, there was only one case of dysentery and no case of fever. There was only one pauper at present from Arran in the workhouse. The sum of £150 had been advanced for the poor fishermen on the west coast, to enable them to purchase fishing gear, which amount was to be repaid in the space of six years. The Society of Friends had advanced twenty pounds as a gift for the purchase of fishing gear to those who were unable to borrow. The islands of Enniscarf and Scarf had also been visited by Dr. Brodie, and he saw Mr. Wilberforce and Mr. Macaulay on the subject, and he was informed by them that the Society of Friends in Dublin had advanced twenty pounds for the benefit of the poor residents of those two islands. The island of Clare was also

  1245
  visited by the Poor Law Inspector. The whole of that island belonged to the Law Life Assurance Company, and the Government applied to their agent, Mr. Robinson, who also supplied funds for the poor, The Roman Catholic Priest had behaved very well, in making collections and distributing the money to the suffering islanders. The islands of Arran, Enniscarf, and Clare had also been visited by the Poor Law Inspector; and he (Sir Robert Peel) believed that he was justified in saying that the inhabitants were not suffering any unusual pressure from want of food, and he might also add fuel. With regard to the island of Achill, that did not require assistance, as he believed the land lords had given assistance, and the people were tolerably well provided with both food and fuel.

  ITALIAN PROCLAMATIONS.—QUESTION.
  MR. DISRAELI: I wish, Sir, to put a question to Her Majesty's Government respecting certain proclamations which have been issued by the officers of the King of Italy in the southern parts of that country. Very recently public feeling was much excited in this country by a proclamation signed by Colonel Fantoni, which commanded the shooting of women and other enormities so incredible that I believe a Minister of authority and one of the advisers of the Crown felt him self justified in his place in denying the authenticity of the document. Unfortunately it proved to be authentic, but public feeling was relieved by the highest authority in another place in forming the country that he had received a communication from the Prime Minister of the King of Italy, declaring that the moment the proclamation of Colonel Fantoni was issued it was by a superior order recalled. But, Sir, I have in my hand another proclamation, which appears to have been issued several days after the proclamation of Colonel Fantoni that we were assured was immediately recalled. I can have no doubt of its authenticity, for I find it in a Neapolitan journal of highly Liberal opinions. The House will, perhaps, allow me to state the principal features of that proclamation that they may comprehend the object of my question; and, also that Her Majesty's Government may recognise, if they have it in their power, whether that document or an official copy of that document is in their
  1246
  possession. The proclamation is signed by one Major Fumel, who was the chief of the district of Farther Calabria, a district that is, I believe, of considerable extent. Now Major Fumel, under date the 12th of February, from Ciro, proclaims—
  "The undersigned, charged with the destruction of brigandage, declares that whoever gives shelter, or any kind of sustenance or aid, to brigands, or seeing them and knowing their place of refuge, does not immediately give information to the armed force, or the civil and military authorities, shall be immediately shot.
  "All cabins must be burnt, towers and farmhouses which are not inhabited, or defended by armed force, must be dismantled within three days, or the doors and windows built up. After that time they will be burnt, and likewise all cattle found without the necessary protecting force will be killed.
  "It is also prohibited to carry bread or food of any kind out of the inhabited parts of the commune; and whoever acts in contravention of this order will be considered as an accomplice of the brigands, and shot."
  Now, the question I wish to put to Her Majesty's Government is to know, whether Her Majesty's Minister at Turin, who appears not until the late inquiry to have furnished Her Majesty's Government with any copy of these documents—whether he has placed that proclamation to which I have now referred within the cognizance of Her Majesty's Government; and whether Her Majesty's Government have given the subject of that proclamation their attention, I may even say their anxious attention?
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: Sir, the right hon. Gentleman had the goodness this morning to give me notice of the question that he meant to ask, and I have therefore made inquiry at the Foreign Office, to ascertain whether any communication has been received there with regard to this proclamation of Major Fumel's. The answer which I got was, that no information on this point had been received either from Her Majesty's Minister at Turin or from Her Majesty's Consul at Naples, but that a telegraphic inquiry would immediately be made for the purpose of ascertaining how the fact stands. I am sure it is needless to say with regard to the proclamation in question that Her Majesty's Government must partake of the disgust that everybody will feel at proceedings of this kind. It is true that the brigands who have infested this part of the Neapolitan territory have committed outrages of the most revolting character, but that is no justification for

  1247
  the authorities to imitate their conduct, and retaliate on the innocent the misdeeds of the guilty. It is perfectly true, with regard to the first proclamation; with respect to which a question was put in another place, that we were informed that such a proclamation had been issued, but that it had been immediately revolted by the superior 'military authority on the spot. And I hope that the result of the inquiry now being made, respecting this proclamation will lead to information of the same kind, and that it will not only have been disavowed, but entirely withdrawn, and, I should trust, censured by the authorities of the King of Italy.

  SUPPLY—ARMY ESTIMATES—REPORT.
  Resolutions reported.
  (2.) £334,151, Manufacturing Departments.
  SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYsaid, he had on a previous occasion put a question to the Secretary for War as to whether certain arrangements had been made with respect to the War Office accounts, in conformity mainly with the recommendations of the Committee on Military Organization; but the right hon. Gentleman in his reply entirely passed over the chief points to which the question related. What he wanted to know was, whether the right hon. Gentleman, or any of the officers under him, knew the cost of the raw materials of the articles manufactured in his department, and the total cost of those articles? It was quite clear, unless the right hon. Baronet knew the cost of the raw material, he could not tell the cost of the article produced; and if he did not know the cost of the article, he could not say that he could manufacture it more cheaply than the same article could he obtained by contract. He wanted to know, therefore, whether the system of the War Office accounts, embraced all the accounts of the department, both chief and subsidiary, so that the right hon. Gentleman could state what was the money value of the several articles produced?
  SIR GEORGE LEWIS: The manufactures carried on under the direction of the War Department are on a very large scale, and the number of articles produced in the course of a year is very great. The whole matter is very properly a subject of jealous inquiry on the part of this House, and I think, therefore, the hon. Baronet's question is perfectly legitimate.
  1248
  Now, Sir, my belief is that the accounts of the different manufacturing departments of the War Office are kept in a very complete and regular manner. Of course, I have no personal experience or knowledge of the matter myself; I can only derive my information from those who superintend those departments. They assure me that the system of accounts is complete and trustworthy, and that there will be by the 1st of April next a balance-sheet of each of those departments. When all those balance-sheets are prepared, I shall lay them on the table in a complete series, and then the House will be able to judge for itself how far those accounts are kept in a satisfactory manner. As to the particular question of the hon. Baronet, whether we are in a condition to state the precise value of each class of articles, my answer is that we are in a condition to state the amount of wages expended on each article, and the cost of the raw material. There is then the ulterior question, what percentage should be added for the plant, the capital, and superintendence? Now, it is much more difficult for Government to make an estimate of those items than for a private manufacturer. There is, also, some annual allowance to be made for the diminution in the value of the machinery. Opinions differ as to the percentage which ought to be added for those heads. I believe, however, on the whole, that the department is in a condition to give an accurate estimate of the price of all the different articles which it manufactures.
  (6.) £2,060,276, Warlike Stores.
  SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYsaid, he was surprised to find that the stores had been sent out to Canada, not in the summer or the autumn, but in the winter of last year, when their conveyance had involved a large additional expense. In the course of the summer things seemed to wear an unpleasant appearance between Mr. Seward, the American minister, and the Foreign Office in this country, and he had been informed that the Canadian government had then asked, not for troops, but for stores, and more especially for arms.
  SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, he thought that his noble Friend at the head of the Government had on a former occasion sufficiently explained why reinforcements were not sent out to Canada in the autumn, that reason being that the Canadian Government did not desire that reinforce-

  1249
  ments should be sent to Canada at that time.
  SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYexplained that he had only referred to stores.
  SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, that the only ground for sending out more stores than were required for the troops then in Canada would have been in order that the militia might be armed. No doubt the Government might have taken that course, but the militia were not then in a state of activity, and Government did not then apprehend any hostilities with the United States.
  (8.) £158,128, Civil Buildings,
  COLONEL DICKSON,adverting to the item of £26,100 for the purchase of part of Mr. Dimes's new factory at Pimlico, said, that the House might naturally suppose that the Government proposed to purchase a building already rented and used, but he believed that the building in question was one in the course of construction for the purposes of the Government; and, after the order for it had been given, the House was asked to pay a sum of £26,000. If arrangements of that kind were made without the cognizance of the House, it would be impossible to say to what extent these manufacturing establishments might increase.
  SIR GEORGE LEWISstated, that the building was in process of construction on Mr. Dimes's land and at that gentleman's expense; and if the Vote should not be confirmed by the House, the Government, according to the arrangement made, would have to rent the building from Mr. Dimes The principal purpose of the building was to provide additional room for stores, and Mr. Dimes was willing to erect the premises at his own cost, provided an adequate rent fur them were paid by the Government. It was thought, however, that the more economical plan for the Government would be to purchase the land with the building on it. In reference to some remarks made by the hon. Member for Liskeard (Mr. B. Osborne) on a previous night, respecting the clothing for the army, he now wished to state that all the great-coats were made at Pimlico and the Government prisons; that the tunics for the infantry were divided about equally between the Pimlico establishment and the trade; and that, with respect to trousers, a large store existed when the last contract was made, but in future tenders equal numbers of tunics and trousers
  1250
  would be given out. Serge trousers were made exclusively at Pimlico.
  First eight Resolutions agreed to.
  (9.) £667,168, Barracks.
  SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, that on this Resolution he would take the opportunity of answering a question put to him by the right hon. and gallant Member for Huntingdon (General Peel) with respect to what seemed to be an excess of 3,000 men over the number voted last year. Those men were additional troops for the artillery, when that force was increased under the direction of the War Department; and the expense was to be defrayed by arrangement between the Indian Government and the War Department, so that these men did not appear among the number voted last year, nor did the charge for them really form part of the Estimates. With respect to the Vote for barracks, the House would perhaps bear in mind that in Committee of Supply a Motion was made for the reduction of the sum by £10,787, proposed as an additional charge for Sandhurst College. That Motion was affirmed by the Committee, so that the additional charge for Sandhurst was struck out of the Estimates. In consequence of that decision it became his duty to inquire how that reduction could be carried into effect, and he found the following to be the state of the case:—A Vote of £15,000 for the same service was taken last year, and a contract was entered into late in the year for nearly the whole amount, with the view of making an addition to the building at Sandhurst. The sum already expended up to the end of December was £953. The work had since proceeded, and he understood that by the end of the present quarter the contractor would be entitled to the payment on the whole of about £5,000. If, in consequence of the vote of the Committee the War Office were to give notice that the rest of the contract could not be completed, the contractor would, of course, be entitled to a compensation, probably amounting to £5,000. It would also be necessary to incur a further expense for pulling down the building (as it could not remain in its present state), and removing the materials, so that the whole expense would be about£12,000. Now, the whole Vote asked by the Government the other night only amounted to £10,787; and that being the state of the case, he thought he should not be

  1251
  justified unless he brought the matter again under the consideration of the House and gave it an opportunity of reviewing its decision. He therefore proposed to re-commit the Vote for the following Thursday, when he would be prepared to enter into detail. The Committee appeared to be under the impression, occasioned by an error of the press in the Estimates, that the accommodation designed for the students would be unnecessarily large; but he understood that if the addition to Sand-burst College now in progress should be completed, there would be proper accommodation for 350 students at the most, and the accommodation, after all, would be inferior to that now provided at Woolwich Academy. He certainly had not anticipated the decision of the Committee, being of opinion that the item in the Estimates was substantially only a revote. He had before stated that it was not intended to lay down any compulsory rule that all persons entering the army should enter Sandhurst College, but it appeared that the decision of the Committee was influenced by some idea that in this respect the University of Cambridge would be unjustly treated in comparison with Sandhurst College; and he was therefore desirous of reading a letter sent a short time ago from the War Office to the Vice Chancellor of the University of Cambridge, showing that there was every disposition to give a favourable consideration to the application of students from that University. The letter was dated the 29th of January, and was as follows:—
  "I am directed by Secretary Sir George Lewis to acquaint you that, having the subject of the admission into the army and into the Royal Military College at Sandhurst of the Students of the University of Cambridge under his consideration, and having conferred thereon with his Royal Highness the General Commanding-in-Chief, he has caused letters on the subject to be addressed to the Vice Chancellors of the Oxford and Dublin Universities, copies of which are enclosed, and I am to request, in the event of the University of Cambridge being also desirous of adopting the course approved in the case of the two Universities above-named, that you will be good enough to state for Sir George Lewis's information what are the examinations at Cambridge which may be considered equivalent to the first and second examination (called Responsion and Moderation) at the University of Oxford, in order that the Secretary of State may be able to determine the qualifications which may entitle the students of the University of Cambridge to exemption from any further examination of a preliminary character in those subjects on admission to Sandhurst as military cadets."
  1252
  The proposal which had been made to the University of Oxford was that the preliminary examination on admission to Sandhurst should be dispensed with in the case of persons who had passed certain degrees at Oxford or Cambridge, and also that the time of admission should be lengthened by six months for the Universities. That was an arrangement which he thought would be beneficial to the students, and was likely to prove generally satisfactory. He should, in conclusion, beg to move that the Vote be recommitted on Thursday next.
  GENERAL PEELsaid, that as the vote was again to come on during the following week, he should for the present content himself by referring simply to the answer which the right hon. Gentleman had given to his question with respect to the 3,000 artillery, which were represented, as hon. Members would perceive by a reference to the Estimates, as being in India, whereas they were absolutely in this country. The fact was that those Estimates provided not for 145,450 men, which was the number the right hon. Gentleman asked the House to vote that year for the army, but for 153,074, which number included the depots of the regiments in India; so that any saving in our existing expenditure would depend upon whether the latter, not the former, number was exceeded. In dealing with the point he would dismiss from consideration altogether the sum to be paid by the Indian Government as a capitation rate on regiments in India, because it had no reference to the Estimates before the House, although it might affect the Ways and Means of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. With respect to the Indian depots, however, he might observe that they were not on the Indian establishment, and never would be until they went out to that country, where they would be no addition to the establishment there, inasmuch as they would be drawn upon merely to supply vacancies; their place in England being supplied by recruits, so that no diminution of expenditure in respect to those depots would be effected. It was by desire of the Indian Government, he believed, that the strength of the depots had been reduced from 200 to 100 men for each regiment, but he doubted whether that was not a measure which would produce rather apparent than actual economy, inasmuch as a recruit after a year's training was, after all, cheaper, because likely to be more efficient, than one who had gone through his drill for only

  1253
  six months. Be that, however, as it might, the greatest inconvenience resulted from the way in which the men belonging to the British and Indian establishments were classified in the Estimates, and if anybody were to take those Estimates up some short time thence he would find they presented to all appearance the somewhat extraordinary information that 145,450—the number voted for the present year—cost exactly £575,750 more for pay and allowances than a greater number of men had done in the previous year. If a different arrangement were adopted, and the number of men belonging to the Indian as well as to the British establishment were more clearly defined, much confusion would, he thought, be avoided.
  SIR CHARLES WOODsaid, he was afraid the change as to the Indian army was to some extent the cause of the confusion of which the right hon. and gallant. Gentleman complained. The Estimates for the year could not be presented in so clear a form as might be the case, owing to the transition state of the Indian army, consequent upon its amalgamation with the Queen's army. The fact was that as far as related to the old Queen's regiments in India no alteration had been made in the Estimates for the present year; the regiments in India being paid there, and the depôts at home being paid in this country, though in a somewhat different mode from that which had hitherto prevailed—namely, by means of a fixed capitation allowance. With respect to those regiments which had been converted from local into Queen's troops, he could only say it was perfectly impossible to give the required information concerning their depôts, inasmuch as they had not yet been formed. Before next year, however, these depots would be formed in this country, and then the capitation rate would apply to them, which was not now the case. The explanation so far as related to the artillery was somewhat different. To the old Royal artillery, which furnished men for the old batteries the capitation rate applied, but to the new local artillery, which was very much below the strength required to complete the Royal batteries—European being substituted to a great extent for native artillery—the rate was not applicable to meet the case of those new batteries of Artillery; therefore a Special arrangement had been made, which was that the whole expense of raising and recruiting them should be borne by this
  1254
  country. Next year they would come under the operation of the capitation rate.
  MR. SELWYNsaid, the Motion which the Secretary for War had submitted to the House was one which could not fail to excite considerable surprise, though he hoped the House would follow the advice rather than the example set by the right hon. Baronet, and not discuss the question. The question of the extension of Sandhurst had always been regarded as financially important, but it had now assumed a still more serious aspect, for after the statement of the Secretary for War it must be considered as affecting the rights and privileges of that House. When the Vote was discussed in Committee of Supply, he had advisedly abstained from saying anything with respect to the pledge given by the Government last Session, that the sum then voted for the extension of Sandhurst should not be expended until certain information had been laid before the House. That was a painful subject, to which he was unwilling to refer. In the remarks he was about to make he had not the slightest mention of uttering a single word which could be personally offensive either to the Secretary of War, whose courtesy everybody must acknowledge, or to his subordinate, Earl de Grey and Ripon, to whom every friend of the Volunteer movement owed many and great obligations. But the question of Sandhurst was one with respect to which a grave responsibility rested upon the Government generally. Without going into the question at length, this much might be said, that after the pledge to which he alluded was given, the Government as a body must have known that the extension of the College of Sandhurst, or any great increase of students there, was a question in which the House, or at least a large section of it, took great interest. Under those circumstances the Estimates were submitted to the House, and the right hon. Baronet made a speech in which he referred to Sandhurst and the probable increase in the number of students. He (Mr. Selwyn) then placed on the paper a notice upon the subject, and it was discussed twice—once in the House and once in Committee of Supply; and it was not till after an adverse vote on the latter occasion that the right hon. Baronet informed the House that it had come to his knowledge that the subject of debate was in fact settled and determined; that net only had the money they were called on

  1255
  to vote been expended, but that there was a contract involving further outlay. What, he asked, had the House been talking and dividing about? Was the discussion the other night a farce, and the division in Committee of Supply a mockery? Was the House to be told, after two discussions and after the Committee had expressed an adverse opinion, that it had come to the knowledge of the Government that it was impossible that things could remain as they were, but that it was absolutely necessary the extension of the College should be carried into effect? The existing state of things must have been known to the Government, and, as an independent Member, he had no hesitation in saying that, in this matter, the House had been trifled with by Her Majesty's Ministers. The Secretary for War had given no notice to the House of his intention of departing from the usual course, which was to ask the House to agree to the Resolution adopted in Committee of Supply; but had kept them in ignorance until the last moment, although he was bound to say that he had that afternoon privately given him (Mr. Selwyn) notice of the course which he was about to pursue. Under these circumstances he trusted that the House would not consent to the proposition of the right hon. Baronet to postpone the consideration of the subject; but that if he was prepared to take any unusual course in reference to the Vote, notice should be given in the ordinary way.
  MR. SPEAKERsaid, the Motion before the House was that the Vote be postponed. The next Question would be that the Vote should be taken into consideration on a subsequent day.
  SIR GEORGE LEWISobserved, that in the few remarks he had made to the House on this question, he had stated that the Government had not, in point of fact, gone beyond the Vote of last Session. He would not attempt to answer the remarks of the hon. Gentleman, but would ask the House to reserve its opinion as to whether the Government had acted with had faith or not until it would be his duty to address the House on a future day.
  COLONEL KNOXsaid, he would beg leave to remind the right hon. Baronet, that when his attention was called the other night to the question of Sandhurst, he stated that the Vote was only a contingent one. After that statement,
  1256
  which was made subsequent to a reference to the pledge given by the Government last year that the money then voted would not be used, it was naturally supposed that no steps would be taken for enlarging the College of Sandhurst until Ministers had submitted their plan of military education to the House. The fact was, however, that the whole of the new, buildings had been contracted for, that £5,000 would become due in a few days, and that the Government had made themselves responsible for the remaining £7,000.
  MR. T. G. BARINGsaid, he must deny that any pledge was given by the Government last Session that the sum voted for the extension of Sandhurst would not be spent. What really took place last Session was this:—A discussion having arisen on the Vote in Committee of Supply, he offered, on the part of the Government, representing then as he did the War Office, that if the opposition was withdrawn, he would undertake that no money should be expended until the House should have ah opportunity of considering the question of military education; but hon. Gentlemen opposite did not agree to that proposition; a division took place, and the Vote was carried, though he admitted by a very small majority. The attention of the noble Lord the Prime Minister having been called to the alleged pledge, he (Mr. Baring) on a subsequent occasion, in answer to a statement made by the hon. Member for Windsor, distinctly stated what had occurred, and reminded the House that what he had said was, that if hon. Gentlemen did not withdraw their opposition, he was not prepared to give any pledge on the subject. On the 28th of June the discussion was renewed, and he then distinctly declined to say that the money should not be spent. In consequence, however, of that discussion, the Government re-considered the whole scheme of education at Sandhurst, and it was very much modified. The plan now proposed by the right hon. Secretary for War was quite different to that which was contemplated at the time the Vote was given.
  Mr. G. W. HOPEsaid, that having been the Member who brought the question before the House last Session, he might state that the majority for the Government on the division was only five; and the House knew very well that if the Government made a reasonable proposition, and told them that they should have all the information on the subject before they

  1257
  spent the money, they were always willing to give it credit; and he could state from information which he had obtained subsequently to the Vote, that that majority of five was entirely gained by the declaration which the Government then made. He certainly thought that the Government had pursued a very extraordinary course of conduct in subsequently repudiating the pledge that they would lay before the House all the information they possessed upon the subject; whereas up to this moment it did not possess the slightest knowledge of the scheme. He had last Session brought a Motion forward for an Address to the Crown that the money should not be expended before the information was obtained; but his late right hon. Friend the then Member for Carlisle (Sir James Graham) rose to order upon the subject; and though there was some difference of opinion on the question whether he was not in order, he bowed with deference to the Speaker's decision that he was not. They were now informed that the Government were ready to give every information upon the subject; but the House ought to have been in possession of such information long before the expenditure of the money.
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, that it was quite plain from the statements of hon. Gentlemen opposite that Government had committed no breach of faith whatever in making the contract which they had made. The subject was mooted last Session in the House whether the Government had made any pledge not to proceed with the extension of Sandhurst until the matter had been further discussed. It appeared, however, not only that they had made no pledge, but it was twice distinctly stated by the organ of the Government that they had given no pledge whatever, and therefore they were bound by none. Hon. Members might, if they pleased, question the propriety of what had been done; but he could not admit that the Government were in the least degree open to the charge of having broken faith with the House, or of having followed a course which the House was led by the declarations of last Session to believe they did not mean to pursue.
  COLONEL DICKSONsaid, that though he had no wish to accuse the Government of a breach of good faith, it must be evident to every one that they got their Vote passed last year under false pretences. His hon. Friend the Member for Windsor
  1258
  had brought the matter clearly before the House; and though there might have been no exact and definite pledge given by the Government, there could be no doubt that the majority for the Government was gained in consequence of the statement that every information would be furnished before the expenditure of the money. He deprecated entirely the practice of spending money before the Government came to the House for authority to raise it; for if such a system were persisted in, no one could say to what an amount the estimates might not eventually be swelled.
  MR. H. A. BRUCEsaid, he was bound to say that his hon. Friend late the Under Secretary for War had correctly represented what took place on the subject of the Vote during the last Session. It was clearly then stated, on condition of the withdrawal of opposition to the Vote, that a statement of the object of the Government in proposing it would be submitted at a future time. But the opposition was not withdrawn, and therefore the pledge was inoperative. He felt quite convinced, if the scheme of the Government had been explained, the mortification or defeat they suffered the other night would not have taken place.
  Ninth Resolution postponed.
  Tenth Resolution agreed to.
  SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, he had then to move that Vote 14 be re-committed in Committee of Supply on the following Thursday.
  MR. WALPOLEsaid, he thought notice should be given by his right hon. Friend that he would, on Thursday next, move that the Vote be re-committed; then the House would have full opportunity of discussing it.
  MR. SPEAKERsaid, the proper form was for the right hon. Gentleman to move that Resolution No. 9, which had been postponed, be taken into consideration on Thursday next.
  SIR GEORGE LEWIS SIR GEORGE LEWIS moved accordingly.
  MR. T. G. BARINGsaid, he had been able to refer to another discussion that took place last Session on the subject. The hon. Member for Windsor made a specific Motion that the sum of £15,000 should not be spent; but that Motion was declared to be not in order. On that occasion he said, what he now repeated, that there could be no charge of had faith on his part; his undertaking being, that if opposition were withdrawn, no expendi-

  1259
  ture would take place till the scheme of the Government was propounded. The opposition was not withdrawn, and when the hon. Member for Windsor asked him the following day, he gave no pledge on the subject; but he was perfectly ready to agree that the new system should not take effect before Midsummer, so as to give full time for the expression of opinion on the subject. He made that on the 28th of July, 1861.
  MR. G. W. HOPEsaid, he must admit that he had been told on the occasion referred to that it was open to him to take the opinion of the House on the Appropriation Bill; but it would have been a simple absurdity to do anything of that sort when the House consisted probably of thirty-seven immediate supporters of the Government and three or four independent Members.
  Motion made, and Question put, "That the Resolution which has been postponed be taken into Consideration upon Thursday next."
  The House divided:—Ayes 143; Noes 105: Majority 38.
  SIR. GEORGE LEWISsaid, he proposed on Thursday to move to refer this Resolution to Committee of Supply, and there would then be one opportunity of discussion upon that Motion. If the House agreed to the Motion, there would be a further opportunity of discussion in Committee of Supply. The House would therefore see that there was no danger of its being taken by surprise. Perhaps it would be convenient now to give notice, that on going into Committee of Supply it was not his intention to propose Vote 15 that evening, inasmuch as it was more or less connected with the postponed Vote.

  SUPPLY.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
THE INDUS STEAM FLOTILLA.

  QUESTION.
  COLONEL SYKESsaid, he rose to ask the Secretary of State for India, Whether he has taken Shares in the Steam Flotilla on the Indus, connected with the Scinde and Punjab Railway Companies on account of the Indian Government, in part payment of the price of Vessels proposed to be sold to the Steam Company by the Government, and whether he has guaranteed 5 per cent upon £167,000 to be raised as additional capital to complete the payments to the Government, and for other purposes? He had put his question on
  1260
  the paper in consequence of his attention having been drawn to an official notice issued by the directors of the Indus Steam Flotilla Company in which the facts were so stated. The steam flotilla belonged to two railway companies, the Scinde Railway Company and the Punjab Railway Company, and it completed the line of communication between the termini of those two companies. Although the Government of India had guaranteed 5 per cent on £250,000 to enable them to put their flotilla upon the Indus, they had not been able to do so, and had therefore been obliged to ask for an additional guarantee on £83,000, at 5 per cent. Notwithstanding that, the undertaking was not complete. The Government had hitherto had vessels on the Indus; but, feeling that they were interfering with private enterprise, they had offered those vessels for sale. The Punjab Company had offered to buy, but had not the money to pay for them; so that an arrangement was made with the Secretary of State that he should receive the price of them in shares of the company. But even that acceptance of shares was insufficient. More money was required, and £167,000 was about to be raised on debentures, with a guarantee of 5 per cent by the Secretary of State; so that the company will have had no less than £500,000 guaranteed, at 5 per cent. by the Secretary of State. On the other hand, another body of capitalists, called the Oriental Steam Navigation Company, was formed in 1856 for the navigation of the inland waters of India. They resolved to begin with the Godavery, and they applied to the East India Company for a guarantee. The Court of Directors refused to comply with their request, but ultimately agreed to give them a subsidy of £5,000 per annum for ten years, provided they fulfilled certain specified conditions. They could not for a time carry out the conditions of their contract, but, by dint of persevering efforts, they were enabled last year to obtain their first subsidy. They had now several steamers on the Indus, and were placing others on the Ganges. They had also offered to buy the steamers and barges belonging to the Government for £45,000; but the Government refused to let them have the barges, in which it was usual on the rivers of India to carry freight in tow of the steamers. The Oriental Steam Navigation Company complained—and appa-

  1261
  rently not without reason—that the advantages which had been denied to them had been granted to their rivals, to the prejudice of competitive enterprise. He therefore desired to put this question to the right hon. Gentleman, who, he hoped, would be able to state that the whole transaction was a myth; for it seemed to him incredible that the Indian Government should take shares in a commercial speculation, in opposition to the principles of free trade.
  SIR CHARLES WOODsaid, he was not about to follow his hon. and gallant Friend into the general question of guarantees. He quite admitted that, in the abstract, they were not in accordance with Free Trade principles; but there were peculiar circumstances connected with railway companies in India. The object in giving a guarantee in the case of the Steam Flotilla Company was really to complete a great line of railway, of which the navigation of that portion of the Indus formed a connecting link. Besides that, he found the guarantees referred to by his hon. and gallant Friend in existence at the time he had the honour of entering on the duties of the office which he now filled, and he had had no option in the matter. Coming to his hon. and gallant Friend's questions, and taking the last first, he had to reply, that the Government had not guaranteed 5 per cent upon £167,000 to be raised as additional capital for the purposes stated. No such proposition had been made to the India Office. With regard to the first question, the Government were bound to see those companies through some way or other; because as they had guaranteed 5 per cent to the shareholders, it was their interest to forward the undertaking, as the only mode of saving themselves from the payment of interest. If the companies could not pay interest out of revenue, the Government would be called on to pay it. In the particular case, the Government of Bombay arranged to sell certain vessels to the company, not having any further occasion for them themselves. Before he had sanctioned the agreement for the sale, another company had been communicated with, but they declined to say whether they would purchase the boats unless they had a previous loan of them for six months. Under those circumstances the sale to the Steam Flotilla and Punjab Railway Company took place. In this, as in the case of another railway company to whom ad-
  1262
  vances had been made, by the Government, the Government thought that the best security they could obtain were shares, by accepting which they had put themselves in the position of shareholders of the company, and were entitled to any advantages that might accrue to them.

NAVAL TACTICS UNDER STEAM.

  QUESTION.
  ADMIRAL WALCOTT: I am desirous to call the attention of the Secretary of the Admiralty to a subject before which all others in my opinion sink into comparative insignificance. I mean the instruction of our officers in command of fleets or squadrons when engaging under steam. It occurs to me that a code of instructions and signals are absolutely necessary to secure that due preparation and uniformity of system so indispensably requisite in Her Majesty's fleets under the total change of circumstances in which we are now placed. The noble Lord is doubtless aware that a manual of this description has long since been drawn up by the French Minister of Marine, and that every officer is required to make himself conversant with it. What can we look forward to but disaster if we send fleets and squadrons into action without any clear or definite ideas of the duties of either admirals or captains? What should we think of an army in which the regiments were merely taught battalion exercise, but never brigaded or instructed in any manœuvres with large bodies of troops? And yet is not this exactly our own case at present? In my opinion we have everything to fear from the crude and discordant ideas of the generality of our own officers on this vital question, and the confusion which must inevitably prevail if some uniform system is not laid down for their guidance, Let me, therefore, most urgently entreat that the Admiralty will consider this as the point which most presses for immediate attention, and without which all our present efforts may become worse than useless. The Coast Guard now numbers from 4,000 to 6,000 men; and yet for some years past the ships on the books of which those men are serving or borne have not been at sea, and are consequently unaccustomed to the use of their "sea legs" aloft. All these Coast Guard ships might he sent to sea joined with the Channel fleet, and the service admitting of it, with a portion of the Mediterranean fleet, and go through the

  1263
  evolutions of which I have spoken, either off Cape Finisterre, or otherwise, as might he selected—evolutions which are necessary and highly important for the welfare and honour of the profession to which I have the honour to belong.

THE ADMIRALTY COMMITTEE.

  QUESTION.
  SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONEsaid, he wished to ask Admiral Duncombe, When he intends to move for the re-appointment of the Admiralty Committee?
  ADMIRAL DUNCOMBEsaid, the hon. and gallant Member seemed to take it for granted that he (Admiral Duncombe) intended to move for the re-appointment of the Committee, as his question merely asked "when" the Motion was to be made? He believed that, according to the usages of the House, the Motion for re-appointing a Committee was made by the Chairman of the Committee, or at his request. But however that might be, as an individual Member of the Committee, it was not his intention to make the Motion. It would possibly be in the recollection of the House that when the Committee was appointed he had objected to several of its Members being placed upon it. He had done so because he had thought it contrary to common usage, and to common sense indeed, that certain leading Members of the House, whose evidence would be essential before the Committee, should, after having given that evidence, return to the judgment-seat and pass judgment on the evidence they themselves had given. When the Committee was appointed and had commenced its labours, he had experienced great difficulty, not having the weight and authority of the chair, in conducting the business he desired to bring before it. Unfortunately Sir R. Dundas, whose loss was justly deplored, both by the service and the country, died shortly before he was about to be called as a witness, in which capacity he would have given evidence contrary to evidence previously given. Other members of the profession, upon whose evidence he (Admiral Duncombe) had relied, were appointed to offices which made their appearance as witnesses incompatible with the retention of office. Others were appointed to commands which rendered it impossible for him to summon them. He had no hesitation, too, in saying that several
  1264
  officers had shown a reluctance to attend before the Committee, though not having the most favourable opinion of existing arrangements. It would have been extremely painful to him to apply for a Speaker's order to compel the attendance of these gallant Gentlemen. Under those circumstances, and considering that it would be unfair to harass a public department by a Committee sitting throughout a whole Session, and constantly requiring information by returns and otherwise from the officers of that department, without any satisfactory result to the country, he had determined not to ask for the re-appointment of the Admiralty Committee.
  MR. HENLEYsaid, his hon. and gallant Friend (Admiral Duncombe) had stated that it was usual for the Chairman of a Committee to move for its re-appointment. As Chairman of the Committee, therefore, he begged leave to say that he took no part originally in moving for its appointment; and as no instruction, nor anything like instruction, had been given by the Committee to him to ask for its continuance, be considered that he stood perfectly free from any responsibility in the matter. If the Committee had given him the slightest hint, or the least kind of instruction, that they wished it to be continued, he should have obeyed that instruction. He, however, did not consider it to be his duty, under the special circumstances under which he took the chair of the Committee, to call for a continuance of the inquiry.

WARRANT OFFICERS IN THE NAVY.

  QUESTION.
  SIR JOHN HAYsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty, If it is the intention of the Board of Admiralty to reduce the number of warrant officers in Her Majesty's navy by taking away boatswains and carpenters from vessels with complements of 125 men and under; and if it is the intention of the Admiralty to make a considerable reduction in the complements of sea-going ships, and to ask him to state upon what principle that reduction will be regulated? It would be satisfactory to the navy to hear that there was no truth in the rumour to which the first part of his question referred. He feared that the duty would be inefficiently performed in the absence of the warrant officers, who were a most trustworthy and

  1265
  valuable class of men. The duty of boatswains and carpenters would have to be performed by petty officers. If these petty officers did perform the duty satisfactorily, then they were entitled to be warrant officers; and if not, then was the ship less efficient. If the want of cabin accommodation were the reason, the warrant officer would, he did not doubt, put up with smaller accommodation, and sleep in a hammock all the more comfortably with a warrant in his pocket than as a petty officer with the same responsibility and half the pay. He considered it unjust to the best seamen in the navy thus to narrow their chances of promotion. The second part of his question referred to the contemplated reduction in the crews of Her Majesty's ships. He quite agreed in the propriety of a reduction in the number of guns on board ships of war. But he must correct the noble Lord in his statement that this involved a reduction of armament; fewer guns of a more powerful character were being substituted for many guns of the old pattern, and the destructive power of the ship was increased rather than diminished. It did not, however, follow that it was necessary to reduce the number of men. An old rule was that a ship cost £1,000 a gun, but they must all acknowledge that that rule was now a fallacy, and so was the old rule that she ought to have ten men to every gun. But as it was now the custom to form Naval Brigades for service on shore in all our wars, which are more or less amphibious, it seemed necessary to have as many men as possible on board our ships of war. It was alleged that a reduction in the number of men was required for sanitary reasons; but not one assertion of that kind was to be found in the report of the Ventilation Committee, What was there recommended was a redistribution in the berthing of the crews. He perceived that the complement of the Revenge, the flag-ship of the Channel fleet was to be. reduced by eighty seamen. Now her crew was 850 men; but of that number, subtracting officers, marines, and others not seamen, only about 450 were seamen; and it was therefore proposed to take away about one-fifth of her complement of seamen. Now, the noble Lord would agree with him that it was better to have one ship well manned than two badly manned. The old saying was especially true at sea, "Many hands make light work." He could not suppose that
  1266
  the contemplated reduction was the result of the scarcity of men, after the speech of the noble Lord the Secretary of the Admiralty to his constituents. He viewed it, however, with considerable alarm, and he had no doubt his apprehensions would be shared by officers on both sides of the House. He believed that Lord Fitzhardinge resigned his seat at the Admiralty rather than consent to a reduction of this kind, and that Admiral Bowles had protested in a similar manner. It would therefore be a great satisfaction if the noble Lord could assure the House that it was not in contemplation to leave Her Majesty's ships without a complement fully sufficient to man them.
  LORD CLARENCE PAGETsaid, that in answer to his hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Christchurch (Admiral Walcott), he had to state that the Admiralty were fully alive to the importance of instructing the officers of the Royal Navy in steam tactics, and they had of late years desired the admirals in command of squadrons to carry out as far as possible the systems devised for that purpose. The plan proposed by Admiral Elliot had, doubtless, considerable merits, but the gallant Admiral (Admiral Walcott) had omitted to mention that there exists already a system of steam tactics contained in the signal book of the navy. It was the opinion of many eminent authorities, that if that system were still further complicated, they would rather damage than otherwise the efficiency of working squadrons under steam. He would give no opinion on this point, but he would assure the gallant Admiral that the subject would not be lost sight of by the Admiralty, and the admiral commanding in the Mediterranean had been desired to make a report, not only with regard to Admiral Elliot's system, but that of other officers. He might also state, that soon after the equinoctial gales it was intended that there should be a steam squadron in the Channel, and that the very important subject of steam tactics would not be neglected. With regard to the junction between the Mediterranean and the Channel squadrons, he was not prepared to answer the question. If such a junction could be made without interfering with the other important services that were always required in the Mediterranean, no doubt it would be very desirable. In answer to the hon. Gentleman (Sir John Hay), he might state that the only vessels

  1267
  from which it was proposed to take away the boatswain and the carpenter were a few vessels of the Icarus class. The hon. Member was not probably aware that to vessels containing 110 men or less only a gunner was attached, and that there was no boatswain or carpenter. All that the Admiralty were about to do was to extend that rule to vessels haying 125 men. There were only four vessels of that class in commission and only ten vessels in the navy, and the change would therefore not have any great effect in reducing the prospect of promotion of warrant officers. His belief was, that the measure was positively called for, because these vessels were so confined below that there was not room for the warrant officers' cabins. The Admiralty proposed to make a small increase in the complement of seamen in these vessels. With regard to the reduction in the complement of the larger ships, all practical seamen were perfectly aware that it was very unadvisable that Her Majesty's ships should go to sea with peace complements. The Admiralty were of the same opinion, but they thought it desirable, as an experiment, that in line-of-battle ships and large frigates a certain reduction in the number of seamen should be made. This reduction, undoubtedly, had reference to sanitary considerations. But he was bound to add that they had vessels with heavier masts and yards and 100 men less than those in the ships in which the reduction of men was to be made, and yet no complaint was heard of any difficulty in handling them. He did not, therefore, anticipate that any complaints would be made from these vessels that they were short-handed, and that the work would be done in a slovenly manner. All he said was, "Wait!" The Admiralty only intended to try the experiment with a certain number of ships. If it were found that with the reduced complement the work was too heavy, and if the sailors complained that the work was beyond their strength, no doubt the Admiralty would revert to the old practice. But he was quite sure that the large ships were at present overcrowded, and one most important reason for the reduction was, that the Admiralty had reduced, not the armament of the ship, but the number of guns, requiring, therefore, a less number of men. He might further state, that although there was a certain loss of weight of shot per broadside, yet that when they came to shell practice, which was most important
  1268
  where wooden ships were concerned, there had been an increase in the amount of explosive power in the shells. The explosive force of shells from modern guns was much greater than that from guns under the old system, and under all the circumstances he did not think the efficiency of the navy would be impaired by the reduction in the complements of men or of the number of guns.

  AFFAIRS IN MEXICO.—QUESTION.
  MR. HALIBURTONsaid, he rose to call the attention of the Government to our relations with Mexico; and to inquire of the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether information has reached the Government that Mexican agents have been commissioned to fit out in America privateers, to operate against the commerce of this country; and whether measures have been taken either in anticipation or in consequence thereof? It was well known to every hon. Member of the House that for the last quarter of a century Mexico had been in a continual state of civil war. The peace of that country was constantly broken by armed partisans or ambitious aspirants for supreme power. War, almost to extermination, was waged, prisoners were put to death, property was confiscated by the successful party, whichever it might be. But, however deplorable might have been the condition of the natives, the position of foreign residents in the country was still worse. They were the objects of plunder to each party in succession, as it became predominant. What they were pleased to call forced loans were extorted from them, or, if they refused to contribute to them, they were cast into prison, and were denied all the protection which the administration of the laws in civilized countries provided for foreign residents. But of all the foreigners in Mexico, those who suffered most were the English, for two reasons—because they were better worth robbing as being richer than others, and also because it was known that their own Government would not interfere to procure redress for them. For years the British residents had called for redress, but had received none. When they appealed to the navy on the station, they were told that the commanders had no orders; and when the consuls reported to the Home Government, the only replies were threats that were never carried out and promises that were never fulfilled.

  1269
  Even the specie trains that were convoyed by armed guards were stopped and robbed, travellers were murdered, and at last a consul was assassinated. For that outrage no redress was obtained, and then the house of another consul was attacked, and a large amount of property under his official charge was taken away. The commander of an English man-of-war was waylaid and nearly murdered, and at last matters reached such a pitch that the interests of merchants resident at home were affected, and then they pressed the matter upon the consideration of the Government. In former times the English Government had always been able, and not unwilling to redress the wrongs of their subjects abroad; but times had changed, and that was no longer the case now. There was a feeling abroad that the English Government were not able, or, if able, were not willing, by themselves to redress the wrongs of English subjects abroad, and therefore in such cases always sought the aid of the bayonets of our neighbours across the Channel. That appeared to him to be a very inconvenient practice. He did not at all undervalue the importance of the French alliance, but still the bonds of alliance might be drawn too tight. A little time before we had a quarrel with the Chinese. It was a British quarrel, but French assistance was called in to obtain redress for the wrongs the British complained of. The inconvenience of the arrangement, however, was felt when our expedition was delayed by the incompleteness of the French arrangements. It was not pleasant, either, to read the questions that were put in the French Senate as to whether the English could be trusted in Mexico, nor the observations that they were tired of helping England to redress her grievances, and that the money spent in the Crimea and China would have been better employed in invading England. Still, the co-operation of the French in our enterprise against the Mexicans might be unobjectionable, and it was better that we should be acting together than fighting against each other. But there the alliance ought to have stopped; but it was judged necessary to have further assistance, and of all people in the world we selected the Spaniards for our allies—the very worst allies we could have chosen for such an undertaking, as every person acquainted with the feelings and prejudices of the Mexicans must have known. It appeared to be inevitable that all seceding colonies
  1270
  should entertain feelings of bitter hostility towards the parent country. The Americans had retained not very amiable feelings towards ourselves, but the Mexicans entertained feelings of dire hatred towards all Spaniards, and yet these were the allies we had adopted upon the present occasion. The Spaniards maintained that the English had invited them to help, while here it had been stated that the offers came from Spain. But, not content with that acknowledgment of our weakness, and not believing that the united forces would be sufficient for the expedition, we had cast about for other allies, and applied, above all, to the Yankees to help us. Every one must he fully aware that the policy of the Americans had been quite different from ours. When they had any grievances in Mexico, real or fancied, they undertook to redress them for themselves. More than that, they had a doctrine, which they ostentatiously put forward the Monroe doctrine—declaring that no European Power had any right to redress any grievances in America, or to meddle in the affairs of that continent, from the North Pole to Cape Horn. But when the Americans had a grievance against Mexico, they redressed it by annexing Texas. They also appropriated California, with its rich gold mines, and, besides this, had their eyes upon the rest of Mexico, when it suited them So they said, "You are beating up for recruits against the Mexicans. But they are Republicans as we are. They break the laws and repudiate their engagements at pleasure as we do. Their liberty is exactly like ours—that is, every man may do what he pleases with reference to the law. It is only the case of the big eagle and the little one. So we must decline your offer." Everybody must be pleased that such an offer met with such answer. Then the three Powers came to an agreement, like the class of persons of whom it was said that there was honour even among them. These honourable Powers agreed that there should be no "grabbing;" there was to be no monopoly of spoil; each was to behave like a gentleman and an honest man. Not one of the three seemed to trust the other two, so the agreement was reduced formally to writing, and was then signed and sealed. But somehow the first thing these honest people did was to quarrel. The Spaniards made a dash. They probably thought that the English were always slow, while the French were in the habit of ap-

  1271
  propriating all the glory. So the Spaniards resolved to be beforehand, and to monopolize the honour themselves. When the Spaniards landed, the Mexicans naturally said, "Here are our old enemies. They are backed by; the English and French. We are going to have a Spanish king set over us." They withdrew from Vera Cruz., relying on the pestilential season, which would, no doubt, prove their best ally, and perhaps make a second Walcheren of this expedition. They ordered the inhabitants, on pain of death, to abstain from any intercourse with the invaders; they destroyed all the provisions in the neighbourhood, and retreated to points where they could meet the enemy. Really one could hardly credit that a Government like our own—an honourable and a manly Government; one conspicuous for ages all over the world for its truth and probity, and the fulfilment of its engagements—should have sent to Mexico as their forerunners repudiating Spaniards, who had been driven away from all the great exchanges of Europe for their had faith in money matters. However, so it was. The Spaniards were sent to preach financial honesty to the Mexicans, and to tell them what a dreadful thing the repudiation of debt was. Now, one of the questions he wished to ask was, what are the relations of this country with Mexico. "Are we at peace or at war?" If we are at war, where was that old-fashioned proclamation which every Government of honour and probity felt bound to issue before they invaded a nation with whom they were at peace? He looked in vain for a proclamation of war; but he found a peace manifesto, which looked as though it had been copied from the Chinese, one of the most bombastic, inflated, high-stilted documents ever penned. That peace proclamation was backed, of course, by some rifled cannon, a few thousand soldiers, and a very large fleet. It told the Mexicans that the allies had come for their good; very much like some German ladies, in the reign of George II., who told the English people, "We have come for all your goods." So the Spaniards said they had no private objects to serve. They only wished to assist the natives in forming a good Government. At the end of the proclamation were these remarkable words, "All this is quite true." Surely every Englishman must feel a blush of shame at the necessity of such an attestation, showing as it did a consciousness that the word of those
  1272
  who framed the document was not likely to be taken. There having been no proclamation of war, were we at peace with Mexico? This could hardly be; for if taking armed possession of; one of the largest fortresses in America was not a state of war, he hardly knew the meaning of the word. Suppose, for instance, that a large fleet and army from Cherbourg took possession of Southampton, and the commanders said, "We come as friends; we have some little grievances to complain of; but we won't settle them here; we will go to London to do that." This would be a parallel case to the joint possession of Vera Cruz. He should not omit to mention that in this proclamation the Mexicans were told that they must pay for the coming, the going, and the staying of the allies. And, besides this, each of the high contracting parties had a separate bill of items. The English bill was "To murdering a consul," so many pounds; "To stealing so much money from another consul;" "To shooting at a commodore and breaking his leg," so much; and so on. Each of the three Powers had a nice little account current; and he asked again, was this state of things war or peace? Evidently the Spaniards thought it war; because General Prim had congratulated his troops upon the great victory they had obtained. That was very much like some other victories of which we had recently heard a good deal, in which one man was killed, two wounded, and several hundred frightened. At Vera Cruz, however no one was killed, or wounded whatever, yet the Spaniards were congratulated in that magnificent style, and victory there was. The allies divided the fortress between them, each having a quarter, and the English were put into one quarter so filthy and pestilential that it was impossible to describe it without disgust; and if his information were correct, the troops were already suffering from yellow fever. The allies were divided in their counsels; some were for going up to Mexico, some for embarking their troops. At all events, the landing in the country to insist upon the fulfilment of promises of redress, whatever terms might be used with regard to it, was a state of war. And then came all those belligerent rights that appertained to war, and among them the right of issuing letters of marque. Not being a party to the Convention of Paris, the Mexicans had all the rights which existed before the convention. Now, he wished to ask whether information had

  1273
  reached the Government that there were Mexican agents in the United States having commissions to fit out privateers to prey upon English commerce; if such in formation had reached the Government, what measures had been taken to prevent that conduct; and if such information had not reached them, whether any steps would be taken in anticipation of such an event? It was very easy to say that by the law of nations privateers could not be fitted out, because, as the coast was occupied by the English fleet, no privateers could sail from any Mexican port, and they would have no right to sail from a neutral harbour. But what reason had people to say that the Americans would not allow it, for their international law was not the old international law of Europe, which they held to be as antiquated as the nations which acknowledged it, but a law which they laid down for their own guidance. Therefore there was no security, unless a strong effort was made by the English Government, that the Americans would regard the law of nations; and anybody who knew anything of the people of the States would know what pleasure would be felt at the fact of a privateer, nominally commanded by a Mexican, catching English merchantmen on the coast of Mexico. He had seen the statement which he had mentioned in American papers—they were not a very good authority, but if they knew anything at all they must know what was going on in New York; and what made him more anxious was that our colonists were afraid of it, and they knew what was taking place at the other side of the water much better than we did.
  MR. LAYARDsaid, he thought that his hon. Friend had touched rather lightly upon the real cause of the expedition to Mexico. There were far more grievances to complain of than those mentioned by the hon. Member. Not to go very far back into Mexican history, it would suffice to say that three or four years ago a party known as the Church party possessed the Government, which recognised as their principles the utmost intolerance, and as their cry "Death to foreigners." The papers that had been laid on the table would show in what manner those principles were carried out, and how that cry succeeded. He need scarcely remind the House that an English consul and a French consul had been murdered; that after one victory every officer taken, and they were fifty-three in number, were
  1274
  barbarously put to death. And not only that, but the medical men who had remained to attend on the wounded, relying on the respect universally paid to those engaged in this task of humanity, had been taken out and shot. Among them was a Dr. Duval, for whose murder compensation was demanded by the English Government. So infamous was the conduct of the authorities, that Mr. Mathew, Her Majesty's Chargé d'Affaires at Mexico, was compelled to leave the capital. Before he did so, he placed a sum of 660,000 dollars in a room in the British Legation, and set his seal on the door, trusting that it would serve as a protection to that property. He had scarcely left the capital, when the authorities violated the seal, broke open the room in the Legation, and plundered the whole of the money. That money was money which had been paid to the English bondholders. At that time what was called the Constitutional party, it the bead of which was Juarez, was established at Vera Cruz; in a short time they extended their authority over the greater part of the republic, the capital and the surrounding territory alone remaining in the hands of the Church party. The British authorities opened communications with this so-called Constitutional party; and Captain Dunlop, an officer in the British service, entered into a formal convention with Juarez for the payment of certain debts due to British subjects, and for the settlement of certain claims. A portion of the customs dues of the ports of Vera Cruz and Tampico were assigned to the liquidation of those debts. That convention was concluded in the time of the Earl of Derby's Government, and was by them accepted and ratified; but not having been fully carried ant, it was succeeded by another, also signed by a British officer, Captain Oldham. At that time the Constitutional party were full of promises. They expected to get back to Mexico, and were willing to undertake to satisfy all the claims the British Government had upon them. But as their successes increased, they began to neglect their promises. In a short time a considerable sum of money, 400,000 dollars, which also belonged to British bondholders, was stolen, by persons of high rank in the employment of the authorities. It was the custom in Mexico to send down convoys from the interior to the coast, under an escort, which was called a conducta, to afford protection against the

  1275
  brigands who infested the country. One of these convoys, known as the Laguna Secca, charged with that large sum of money, was attacked by the officers of the Government itself under General Degollado, and the money plundered. Upon the representation of Mr. Glennie, the consul at Mexico, a part of the money was given back as belonging to British subjects; it was, however, again seized upon under various pretences, but was afterwards restored and divided among French, British, and other claimants. Sir Charles Wyke was about that period sent out as Envoy Extraordinary from this country; but in the mean time Mr. Mathew had recognised the Government of Juarez, which had established itself in the capital, on the condition that the grievances of British subjects should be redressed and British claims made good. On the arrival of Sir Charles Wyke in Mexico, it was hoped that these promises would be carried out. Unfortunately, they were not. Little change, indeed, took place in the state of affairs in Mexico. After Sir Charles Wyke's arrival murders had been rife, several Englishmen had been brutally killed, no redress had been granted; and not only that, but the whole of the claims of British subjects, even those secured by the convention, had been repudiated. Though the authorities had agreed to pay back the sum that had been scandalously plundered from the British Legation, they evaded that promise by saying that it was a personal matter and that those who had been engaged in it should be tried for the offence. A mock trial took place, and the person chiefly compromised was acquitted, on the ground that it was not a robbery, but only "an occupation"—the money was only "occupied." Thus all redress was refused. A tax upon the capital of all foreigners was soon after imposed. The last and crowning act was the suspension of cash payments, however guaranteed, for two years. Sir Charles Wyke, having thus failed utterly to obtain redress for grievances and a recognition of our just claims, suspended his relations with the Mexican Government. The hon. Gentleman had stated that the English Government, finding that they could obtain no redress, had asked for the assistance of Spain and France. But was that so? Most undoubtedly not. The Spanish Government had claims as well as the English against Mexico. They had entered into a treaty with Mexico, known as the Mon-Almonte
  1276
  treaty, which appeared to him exceedingly moderate; and that treaty having been grossy violated, they had a right to demand redress and compensation. They had, moreover, to demand reparation for the murder of a large number of Spanish subjects. The French Government also had pecuniary claims, and claims for the murder of a consul and other persons. Indeed, two or three months ago the French Minister himself was shot at, and no apology or redress had been given to the French Government. But before the English Government had moved, the Spanish Government had already taken steps, and our action was nearly simultaneous. The hon. Gentleman complained that we permitted the Spaniards to arrive in Mexico before ourselves. No doubt there had been some misunderstanding in that, but it had been fully explained by the Spanish Government. It appeared that the Spanish governor at Havannah, understanding that an expedition was to take place, but not being aware that any steps were to be taken by France or England, had sent troops to Vera Cruz as early as possible. The Spanish Government explained how this happened, and the explanation was deemed satisfactory. He thought that his hon. Friend was in error when he stated that, in taking the steps they did, the Spanish Government wished to have, as he facetiously termed it, "the first share in the grab." This first misunderstanding having been satisfactorily settled, from that time there had been no reason to complain of the results of the prior occupation; on the contrary, there had been cordial co-operation between the Spanish and English commissioners and officers. His hon. Friend said, that when the English arrived they found the place already occupied, and that the English troops were placed in a building too disgusting to be described. In that respect his hon. Friend was misinformed. The statement received by the Government from its own officers was to the effect that a building just quitted by Spanish troops outside the town had been assigned to a body of English marines; but that this building not having been found convenient, the best and most airy edifice in Vera Cruz had been given to them. Nor did he believe that his hon. Friend was well informed when he said that yellow fever had broken out among the English troops. Certainly no confirmation of such a report had

  1277
  reached the Foreign Office. His hon. Friend had commented on a certain proclamation which had been issued, and he was somewhat inclined to agree with his hon. Friend in his criticisms. Its tone was not quite that to which Englishmen in their plain dealing were accustomed, and he might say at once that the Government did not approve that part of the proclamation in which it was said that the object of the intervention of foreign Powers in Mexico was the regeneration of the people and to enable them to form a new Government. So far from that being the case, the papers on the table showed that Her Majesty's Government had most distinctly stated from the commencement that their object in going to Mexico was not to interfere in internal affairs, but solely for the purpose of claiming the due fulfilment of engagements existing between the Mexican Government and this country, and for the protection of English life and property. The British Government were, of course, anxious that a Power with which they were desirous of being on friendly terms should be regenerated from the lamentable condition into which it had fallen; and that Mexico, rich in natural resources, should occupy that position among the family of nations to which she was entitled; but we could take no active part in bringing the regeneration about. The English force had gone there, solely to obtain that justice which this country was entitled to demand. His hon. Friend commented upon what he termed the application made by the English Government to the United States for aid Her Majesty's Government had done nothing of the kind. All they had done, in concurrence with the other Powers parties to the convention, was to invite the United States, if they thought fit, to join with them in demanding redress of grievances from Mexico. Knowing the interest which the United States felt in Mexico, that was but a just consideration for their susceptibilities. The reasons for our inviting the United States, and their reasons for declining, were fully set forth in the papers which had been laid upon the table of the House. Her Majesty's Government only desired that the United States Government should have an opportunity of uniting with them in asking for that redress to which they were entitled as well as ourselves. They could not do less than ask the United States to join with us, and he believed the United States Government fully appreciated the course taken by the three
  1278
  Powers. His hon. Friend said that the answer of the United States was that, so far from helping the expedition, they would help the Mexicans. That was not the case. What they said was this:—"We are anxious to preserve the independence of Mexico. If we can assist them as a neighbouring State, in whose political institutions we sympathize, we will do so; and that assistance will consist in giving them the means of discharging their pecuniary obligations to the three Powers." Whether anything would come of that offer or not he (Mr. Layard) was then unable to say. Then his hon. Friend had asked whether this country was at peace or at war. He thought it was not at war. So far from that being the case, the last advices stated that the Government of which Juarez was the chief had shown a disposition to treat with the allies and to concede their just demands. He trusted that ample concessions would be made, and that the necessity for violent measures might be avoided. His hon. Friend had also asked whether letters of marque had been issued. The Government had no positive information on the point, but reports had reached them to the effect that agents of the Mexican Government had been sent to New York and to other ports in the Northern States furnished with letters of marque. The Government had not hitherto heard that any such letters had been issued, but they had adopted means to protect British commerce and property by informing Sir Alexander Milne, who commanded our fleet on the American Station, that Mexican agents with letters of marque were supposed to be in the United States; and there could be no doubt that a good account would be given by that admiral of any privateers attempting to interfere with British commerce.
  Motion agreed to.

  SUPPLY—ARMY ESTIMATES.
  House in Committee.
  Mr. MASSEYin the Chair.
  The following Votes were then agreed to: —

  (1.) £24,360, Rewards for Military Service.

  (2.) £77,600, Pay of General Officers.

  (3.) £479,722, Pay of Reduced and Retired Officers.

  (4.) £179,876, Pensions to Widows, &c.

  1279

  (5.) £35,633, Pensions for Wounds.

  (6.) £33,923, Chelsea and Kilmainham Hospitals.

  (7.) £1,156,380, Out-Pensioners of Chelsea Hospital, &c.

  (8.) £143,364, Superannuation Allowances.

  LORD HOTHAMsaid, he would take that opportunity of asking when the Miscellaneous Estimates would come on. The Navy Estimates had been passed in two evenings, and now the army in; Very little more. That was expedition quite unexampled in the history of Parliament. The noble Viscount at the head of the Government would remember when he was Secretary for War that the Army Estimates Occupied twenty one nights. He (Lord Hotham) would suggest; looking at what was nightly the state of the House, that the Miscellaneous Estimates might also be brought on and be disposed of with as little delay as the other two. There was a very general disposition on the part of all Members, for reasons which were very well understood, not to engage in any controversial debate during that Session, and therefore there was no; reason why all the practical business, might not be finished before Easter. The only heavy Bill was in the Lords, and would not take long in that House. There was no use their coming there night after night with nothing to do, and therefore if the Government would be so good as to let them have the Miscellaneous Estimates without delay they might soon be disposed of, as nobody was inclined to obstruct the progress of business. If something of the kind were done, hon. Members might occupy the remainder of the year much more agreeably than coming there night after night to do nothing. From the state of the House every evening, the Government enjoyed facilities for carrying financial measures through which they never had had before.
  SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, that seeing the disposition of the House to proceed with the transaction of business, it was with great reluctance that he had found it necessary to ask hon. Members to reconsider one of the Votes on Thursday next. That Vote would probably give rise to some discussion; and another Vote, No 15, had been postponed, and would still require the attention of the House. However, he hoped that to-morrow the Estimates for the Revenue Departments, and also for the Post Office, would be in the hands of hon. Members, and it was the intention of
  1280
  the Government to propose to go on with those services after the two remaining Votes with respect to the army should be disposed of. As to the remaining Estimates of the Civil Services, he hoped that they would be in the hands of hon. Members in the course of the week.
  House resumed.
  Resolutions to be reported To-morrow.
  Committee to sit again on Wednesday.

OFFICERS' COMMISSIONS BILL.

  COMMITTEE.
  Order for Committee read.
  House in Committee.
  Clause 1 agreed to.
  Clause 2.
  SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, the hon. Member for the King's County had given notice of an Amendment, with a view of showing that it was competent to Her Majesty's Government in Council to make the alteration which this Bill proposed to accomplish. He held in his hand a very long list of Acts of Parliament—with Which, in the absence of the hon. Gentleman, it would not be necessary for him to trouble the House—and they would have shown him that his view was not founded on law; and that in the case of any alteration similar to that proposed by the Bill—of which there had been many examples in former times—it had always been made by order of Parliament.
  Clause agreed to, as were the remaining Clauses.
  House resumed.
  Bill reported, without Amendment; to be read 3o To-morrow.

  TRADE MARKS BILL.—SELECT COMMITTEE.
  MR. MILNER GIBSON MR. MILNER GIBSON moved, that the name of Mr. POTTER be added to the Select Committee on this Bill.
  Motion agreed to.
  MR. CRAWFORD MR. CRAWFORD moved that Mr. MOFFATT be added to the Committee.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Moffatt be added to the said Committee."
  MR. ROEBUCKsaid, he objected to the number of the Committee being increased, and he should therefore oppose the Motion. It would have been churlish on his part to refuse compliance with the request of the President of the Board of Trade, who had shown a most temperate

  1281
  and conciliatory spirit. But to enlarge the Committee unnecessarily would embarrass its operations; and the appointment now proposed was further objectionable because it introduced the element of personal interests, which must be productive of disagreeable controversies.
  MR. MILNER GIBSONsaid, he had originally put the name of Mr. Moffatt down as a Member of the Committee, because he represented the interests of the vendors, who had made him their mouthpiece; and vendors were much interested in the question of trade marks, because they might innocently sell goods which had fraudulent trade marks upon them He had afterwards taken off the name of Mr. Moffatt, because an hon. Gentleman behind him, who made a speech against the Bill, wished to be upon the Committee. As a general rule, he concurred with the hon. Member for Sheffield that it was un-desirable to enlarge Committees, but he thought Mr. Moffatt might fairly be regarded as representing the interests of vendors.
  MR. SOTHERON ESTCOURTsaid, he thought that the proposed was not a convenient mode of forming a Committee. If the hon. and learned Gentleman objected to the name, he should support him.
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTONsaid, it was true that, as a general principle, it was not advisable to add to the original number of a Committee, but it must be admitted that Mr. Moffatt would be a valuable addition. He hoped that the hon. and learned Gentleman would not divide the House.
  MR. ROEBUCK: Why break the agreement?
  MR. MILNER GIBSONsaid, he thought that he had suggested to his hon. and learned Friend that it might be desirable to add other Members to the Committee.
  MR. FRANK CROSSLEYsaid, he should support the addition of the hon. Member for Honiton to the Committee.
  MR. KINNAIRDrecommended the adjournment of the debate.
  SIR GEORGE LEWISsaid, that as there was not a sufficient number of Members present to make a House, he would move that the debate should be adjourned.
  MR. ROEBUCKsaid, that when his right hon. Friend wished Mr. Potter's name to be put on the Committee, he said to him (Mr. Roebuck) that he had better put another name on, in order to balance that of Mr. Potter. He (Mr. Roebuck) replied
  1282
  that it would be better not to do that, for he had no objection to Mr. Potter.
  MR. MILNER GIBSONsaid, he left the hon. Member under the impression that there would be no obstacle, if desirable, to add another Member or two to the Committee.
  Debate adjourned till Thursday.
  House adjourned at a quarter after Eight o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILL.—2a Exchequer Bills.
ITALY—PERSECUTION OF THE PRESS.

  MOTION POSTPONED.
  THE MARQUESS OF NORMANBY, in postponing the Motion of which he had given notice relative to Government prosecutions of the press in Italy, from Friday to Monday next, said his principal reason for doing so was that the noble Earl the Secretary for Foreign Affairs had insinuated a charge of forgery against a most respectable paper in Italy, the Armonia, and had stated that that, as well as other Conservative papers, enjoyed perfect impunity under the rule of the present liberal Government. He therefore thought it right to endeavour to ascertain from the parties most interested what this perfect impunity had been. Unfortunately, it was probable that the receipt of that information would be delayed, owing to the death of a distinguished Piedmontese nobleman, who for fourteen years had filled the office of director of the Armonia. He could not say he regretted the necessity for the postponement of his Motion which had thus arisen, because facts which had transpired within the last two or three days tended strongly to show that the cruel proclamation the noble Earl opposite believed to have been exceptional in its nature, in reality formed only part of the infamous system established by the Piedmontese invaders.
  EARL RUSSELL: I do not accept as perfectly correct the statement of my noble Friend with regard to my speech. But I

  1233
  think I had better reserve my explanation till he brings forward his Motion.
  THE MARQUESS OF NORMANBYsaid, he referred to the remarks of the noble Earl as reported. He might not have used the words "perfect impunity," but he certainly employed, or was reported to have employed, language capable of that construction.

UNITED STATES—CONFEDERATE STATES OF AMERICA—BLOCKADE OF THE SOUTHERN PORTS.

  MOTION FOR CORRESPONDENCE.
  LORD CAMPBELLrose to call attention to the blockade of the ports of the Confederate States of America, and to move an Address for Copies of any Correspondence upon the subject which might have taken place since the date of the Papers which had been laid before Parliament. The noble and learned Lord said the object of the Motion is not to impugn the conduct of the Government or to show that the blockade ought before now to have been opened, or that now some measure in that direction should be taken, but to establish that the attitude in which we stand with one of the belligerents suspends, if it does not violate, neutrality, and that some further action is required in order to restore the neutrality we aim at. The belligerent in question is the Southern or insurrectionary power, and our attitude towards it arises out of a transaction very easy to recall, and a despatch with which the world is perfectly familiar, that of the Foreign Secretary to Lord Lyons, dated February 15th. The transaction was an appeal on our part to the Government of Richmond, through our Consul at Charleston, to accept the principles of public law laid down at Paris in 1856. The whole narrative appears in Paper No. 3 of the series on America. The negotiator with the Government of Richmond was not our Consul in person, but a gentleman of South Carolina, whom he chose to represent him. It was clearly open to the Government of Richmond to decline the proposition, not upon its merits, but on the ground that they could not hold intercourse with the agent of a power which had not yet recognized the place they claimed in the society of nations. Such a refusal might have easily been made on grounds of policy, as well as grounds of dignity, because if they consented to negotiate with countries which denied their claim to recognition, they
  1234
  might seem in the eyes of some to compromise their right to urge, or at least to reduce their power of extorting it. And it is well known that, among the leading men of Richmond, there was a difference of opinion on the conduct which became them. However, not only did they consent to hear our negotiator, but they determined to embrace his proposition. On the 13th of August last year the President of the Southern Congress signed the Resolution which that Congress had arrived at, accepting all the rules laid down at Paris in 1856, except that which relates to privateering, and which we had not asked them to adopt. But the President was not so weak as to refrain from telling our negotiator that he looked for something in return for the concession he was making, and that the return he hoped for was a rigorous adherence, on our part, to the principles we had laid down as to blockades. We gained our point on such an understanding. So much for the transaction with the Government of Richmond. We now came to the despatch of the 15th of February, in which the Foreign Secretary, so far as the papers show, in reply to no question, in obedience to no demand, and in fear of no emergency, volunteers his approbation of the blockade as carried on at Wilmington and Charleston. It is perfectly notorious to all by whom these papers have been studied that at Wilmington and Charleston the blockade has been less effective than at any other portion of the seaboard from the north of Virginia to the extremity of Texas. The effect of the despatch, therefore, is to relieve the Government of Washington from the necessity to maintain at any part a higher or stricter type than that which Wilmington and Charleston have illustrated. Wherever it exceeds that type which the Foreign Secretary has selected for encouragement they are at liberty to weaken and abate it. It is unnecessary to prove its inefficiency at other ports, since its state at these two has been accepted as the standard. How far is such a measure, upon our part, consistent with the engagements we incurred in August to the Government of Richmond. It should never be forgotten that our Government were not forced to choose between the opposite alternatives of raising the blockade or of giving it in its weakest points a conspicuous and irrevocable sanction. They might, in a despatch so public and mo-

  1235
  mentous, have sanctioned not its weak points, but its strong ones, if any such could be discovered; they might at least have gone on without a pointed declaration, and only so far recognised it as they had during the autumn. On what ground were they required to blazon a manifesto in its favour, which must offend and startle one of the belligerents who had a right to look to a very different conduct from us, who had: a right at least to hope, that when we quitted silence, it would not be for language inconsistent with our pledges to him? How can it be shown that this uncalled-for manifesto does not violate neutrality by a departure from the principles which we urged upon the Government of Richmond, and should have urged in vain, had it been thought that we were ready to abandon them? It can be shown, in one way only—namely, by disproving the evidence which this book presents on Wilmington and Charleston. Happily the witness to be heard is that very Consul whom the Government urged to negotiate with the Southern Power on the point which I referred to, whose previous character is shown, by the appointment to so delicate a trust, and whose fitness to receive it was proved by the rapid and successful close to which he brought the business. The jurisdiction of Mr. Bunch extended over both these harbours—one of them in North, the other in South Carolina. It is not necessary to rely on the evidence which the Southern envoys have adduced. It is not necessary to rely upon the circumstance that the harbour of Charleston has been barbarously choked up, which would not have happened could access to it have been otherwise prevented. It is not necessary to rely upon the circumstance that now ships may be insured at fifteen per cent between Liverpool and Charleston, whereas fifty per cent would be required, as shipowners inform us, in a really adequate blockade. Our Consul had no motive for leaning one way or the other, although the Northern Government have now deprived him of his office by taking away his exequatur. In support of this view the noble Lord then read copious extracts from the despatches in question. The noble Lord, in continuation, said—Such was the blockade at these ports in which it has received so unlooked-for and so astonishing a sanction. But does it, therefore, follow that the conduct of the Government is open to exception? On the contrary, it only follows that further cor-
  1236
  respondence is required to throw some light wholly wanting now upon the reasons which directed them. Further papers may show that they were forced to make a declaration on these particular localities by an embarrassment which could not be disposed of, or an inquiry which could not be adjourned. They may show us that the French Government had already acted in this manner, and that it was necessary to keep up the concert of the two upon American affairs. They may show us that further evidence was in possession of the Government to rebut that of our naval officers and consuls. They may show us that an explanation has been offered to the Government of Richmond with which we have communicated once and may communicate again, calculated to remove the sting from a proceeding which must appear to them so adverse. But if no further information is extended, the irresistible conclusion will present itself that we owe a debt to one of the belligerents which ought to be discharged, although not by raising the blockade, a course after their despatch impossible for Government. If no further information is extended; until that debt has been discharged in one form or another, neutrality may be upon the lips of official men, but has lost its place among their counsels. The noble Lord concluded by moving—
  "An address for copy of any correspondence on the subject of the blockade of the ports of the Confederate States of America, subsequent to the papers presented to this House.
  LORD ABINGERbegged to congratulate Her Majesty's Government on the judicious manner in which the recent negotiations relative to the Trent with the United States Government had been conducted, and on the spirit of prudence, dignity, and conciliation which had been displayed, and which had met with the approbation of all classes of the people of this country. He had by no means anticipated so easy a solution of the difficulty. Some four years ago he spent some time in the United States, and he was received with such friendly kindness by all classes of the people there that he confessed this miserable contest conveyed a personal feeling of deep sorrow and regret to his mind. He thought it might be unadvisable, under existing circumstances, to raise the blockade of the Southern ports. Were they to attempt to raise the blockade, our cruisers would inevitably be brought into contact with the Federal squadron, which

  1237
  would not admit our right to interfere, and a collision would thus be brought on between the two nations. He so much approved of the policy of non-interference which had been adopted by the Government that be should be sorry to see any system inaugurated which would lead to difficulties and complications on this subject. The whole question turned, in his opinion, upon the determination of the South to maintain their own independence. Had they seen any flagging on the part of the Confederate States in carrying on war against their former associates? He thought they had not. He apprehended that those States would maintain their separate existence, and be confessed his sympathies were with that gallant people who were struggling for their independence against immense difficulties. He admitted that the Northern States were superior in men, material, and treasure and he did not undervalue the importance of their recent successes, but he believed, notwithstanding, that the subjugation of the South was an impossibility. The determination of the Southern States to maintain their independence must be admitted by all, and when once that was the case it was time to consider whether a recognition of their independence was not a measure which we ought to take to save bloodshed, and to put an end to the war. He hoped that some independent Member would make a Motion to that effect, or, failing that, that the subject would he taken up by some noble Lord on that side of the House.
  EARL RUSSELL: I quite admit the right of the noble Lord to call in question the conduct of the Government with respect to the blockade which has been established by the Northern States of America; nor, indeed, should I complain if any noble Lord had called in question the whole of the conduct of the Government with respect to the unfortunate division which has taken place in America; for I an convinced that the policy we have pursued is not only founded on reason, and justified by argument; but also that it has the general approval of the country. With respect to this particular question—and I will not detain your Lordships by entering into any other—it was, of course, a matter of consideration for Her Majesty's Government from time to time in what manner this blockade should be regarded. There are various questions with regard to the blockade which they had to consider.
  1238
  Firstly, was there sufficient authority for instituting a blockade? Lord Stowell says, that a blockade must be the act of a sovereign authority; and this blockade is the act of the President of the United States, who, on the 19th of April last year, issued his Proclamation, declaring that a blockade was about to be instituted. That act was followed by different armed ships of the United States blockading the various ports and warning vessels off the coast. Therefore, there can be no question as to the authority by which the blockade exists. Then, with regard to the means which the President of the United States, as the organ of the Government, employs. Of course those means were very deficient at first; but I think these papers show, and everything which we have beard shows, that the Government of the United States has been most desirous so to augment their squadron, and so to employ their ships, that there might be a sufficient force to maintain an effective blockade. It was, in fact, a matter of the greatest importance to them—it was a vital point of their policy; therefore we cannot doubt that they used every means in their power. We find that as early as the 15th of July, when complaints were made in some of the New York papers that the blockading squadron was not sufficient, that the Government had then sent on that service 34 men-of-war, of 56,000 tons, with 726 guns, and 10,113 men. This showed that the Federal Government made great efforts to render the blockade efficient. It might be said, again, at the commencement of the blockade, that it was too extensive, and that it was impossible, owing to its extent, that it could be efficient. But we must recollect that we ourselves, in our American War, instituted a blockade extending over 2,000 miles of coast; and the difference between 2,000 and 3,000 miles of coast is not so great as to authorize us to raise any objection to the blockade on that account. With reference to the blockade of 3,000 miles of coast, although such as we proclaimed ourselves and such as the law of nations allows, it is obvious that with several large ports and many smaller ones to watch there will surely be irregularities in the conduct of it. But, nevertheless, we find, generally speaking, that there has been an intention to station ships at those ports, and that those ships have been regularly stationed. We find that the blockade of Charleston was instituted on the 11th of May by the Niagara, the blockade of

  1239
  Penascola on the 13th of May; that of the Mississippi was effective on the 26th or 27th, and that of Savannah on the 28th of May; in each case with sufficient ships for the purpose. The noble Lord (Lord Campbell) says that the blockade of Charleston was interrupted on some day of May but resumed at the commencement of June; and the noble Lord himself has read a letter, which showed that on the 5th of June the blockade was resumed by authority. There was also an account of another ship being added on some day in July or August, and there is no reason to suppose that there had been no ships of war before that port, and the whole question that arises is as to the interruption of the blockade between the 15th or 23rd of May and the 4th of June. If any ship had been taken at that time into a Prize Court, it might well have been argued by the owners that there was an interruption, and that no blockade at the time existed; but that does not affect the general question of the blockade of the Southern coast of America. And let it be remembered, above all, that if there were an ineffectual blockade, the last place in which we should hear of it would be in the American Prize Courts. When a merchant vessel had been taken into one of those Courts, it would be quite competent for the owners to plead that there was no effective blockade, and that therefore the vessel, not having broken it, could not be legally condemned. No one will say that there are not Judges in America quite competent to decide questions of international law,—Judges who have inherited the precepts and doctrines of such men as Chancellor Kent and Justice Story,—quite competent to pronounce judgment according to law, and who, I believe, would not have departed from the law in their decisions in such cases. But I do not find that there has been any real discussion in the Prize Courts of America, except perhaps in one or two instances, with respect to the efficiency of the blockade. I must confess to the noble Lord that the many instances which are given by Consul Bunch and others of the vessels which have run the blockade induced me to consider the whole of this question with a view to deciding what the course of the Government should be. But, in saying that many vessels have run the blockade, I think there is great exaggeration, and there is great misapprehension, when lists of vessels are given which are, in fact, vessels belonging to the Southern ports,
  1240
  which run out of creeks and creep through shallow waters in order to, reach another port on the same coast. These are mostly small vessels of from 50 to 350 tons, and it is stated in one of these letters that they cannot be regarded as vessels of such size and importance as to argue that the blockade was inefficient which allowed them to escape. Your Lordships know very well that in 1806 the Government of this country announced a blockade extending from Brest to Dunkirk; but during that and other blockades which we instituted on the French coast there were many coasting vessels which went from one port of France to another, entirely evading the blockade. But would that have justified either America, or any other neutral Power in saying, "This blockade is ineffective, and we will not acknowledge it, and we require you to give up the vessels which you have seized for breach of blockade"? It certainly would not have justified such a course. But there is another consideration. Has the Southern coast had a free and uninterrupted communication with Europe? Have your Lordships heard that cotton has arrived there in its usual quantities from the Southern coasts of America, and that the manufactures of Great Britain and France have arrived freely at the ports of the States which are now in a state of civil war? On the contrary, the intelligence which we have received—the intelligence which all the world has receive— shows that there has been no such uninterrupted intercourse, but that great inconvenience has been suffered by the inhabitants of these Southern States, owing to the existence of that blockade which is said to be ineffective. As I thought that this question of the efficiency of the blockade was of the utmost importance, I deemed it desirable to consult the law officers of the Crown; and after having done so I wrote the despatch to Lord Lyons, which the noble Lord has quoted, stating that—
  "Her Majesty's Government, however, are of opinion that, assuming that the blockade is duly notified, and also that a number of ships is stationed and remains at the entrance of a port sufficient really to prevent access to it or to create an evident danger of entering or leaving it, and that these ships do not voluntarily permit ingress or egress, the fact that various ships may have successfully escaped through it will not of itself prevent the blockade from being an effective one by international law."
  This was the deliberate opinion of Her Majesty's Government on the subject. I cannot give the papers to which the noble

  1241
  Lord refers, on the very ground on which he asks for their production. He says, perhaps there may be papers that may show the blockade he thinks ineffective may really have been effective. There are no such papers; there are no papers that can make the case stronger for the Government than those which have been given; the Government is willing to leave your Lordships to judge the case from the whole effect of the papers that have been already printed, and whether they tend to the outside or the other your Lordships must judge. As to any representations from the Government of France that it considered the blockade ineffective, I must state that no such communication has ever been made to Her Majesty's Government. Nor have we ever had any communication with the Government de facto in Richmond with respect to the point which the noble Lord has referred to, and which I really think has nothing to do with the question at issue. At the commencement of the out break we asked whether the Government of the South were willing to acknowledge the second, third, and fourth articles of the Declaration of Paris, and they expressed their readiness to do so. This was a great advantage to both the belligerent parties, but we entered into no engagement with the Southern States. It was our duty to see that the Declaration of Paris was adhered to independently of any such engagement: it is our duty with regard to all neutral nations, and with regard to the peace of the world. The noble Lord (Lord Abinger) who spoke second, spoke with feeling of his intercourse with the people of both the North and South of America. It would have been a great misfortune if, owing to circumstances, we should have thought ourselves obliged to take a course in such a quarrel that would have made us become partisans either of the North or South. It was my object and the object of every member of Her Majesty's Government, from the very beginning of the conflict, to watch the course of events, with the determination to act in an impartial spirit and preserve a strict neutrality between the two Powers. Sometimes our course—as when we acknowledged the Southern Stales as belligerents—may have been considered as having an injurious effect on the North. On the other hand, when forbidding privateers to carry their prizes into any British port, it may have been considered to have had an
  1242
  effect unfavourable to the South. But we did not consider the tendency of these acts. We only considered whether they were just in themselves and becoming the character of this country. If we had been obliged to take part either with one side or the other, it would have been a misfortune and calamity for the world, and for the people of America especially. On this subject I have seen lately a very interesting account—I believe an official report—published in American newspapers, from a person who was sent to superintend the negroes of Port Royal. The person making the report describes the condition of those negroes, how ready they were on the promise of some small wages to continue their work, and he ends by saying:—"Although I have done everything I could to dissipate the assertions, as calumnious as they are false, as to the Government of President Lincoln, I carefully abstained from exciting the slaves to rise against their masters." If by any misfortune, if owing to the necessity to vindicate our honour, if owing to persuasion that this blockade could not be legally acknowledged, we had been obliged to take part in this war, any thought of ending this great question of slavery by peaceable means would, I am persuaded, have vanished—the North would have proclaimed a general emancipation and liberation of the slaves. It is our earnest wish that the sin and stain of slavery may cense, yet there is nothing which I should look to with greater horror than a sudden insurrection of 4,000,000 of slaves, the devastation they would cause, and the horrors, murders, and pillage which, in the name of liberty, might have been perpetrated. I trust, therefore, that when this conflict ends, it will end in such a way that, although the cause of the emancipation of negroes will have gained, it will be an emancipation conducted gradually and by peaceable means, and that the slaves of America will in time take their place as free labourers, without the loss of the lives or the destruction of the property of their masters. It is not owing to their masters that slavery now exists in the Southern States of America—it is an inheritance which they have derived from this country. But if we had taken up this subject of blockade, if we had said that vessels condemned in the various prize Courts of America had been unjustly and unlawfully condemned, and the American Government had maintained that they were

  1243
  justly Condemned, I know of no course which would have been open but war with the United States. Having taken a different course, I do trust that within three months—perhaps even soouer—we may see the close of this unfortunate civil war in America. I have not intended by the language I have used to take the part of the one side or of the other. I trust that the contest may so end as to allow to each side a course of happiness and freedom. It will, perhaps, be impossible to renew the old feeling of union between the North and South; and if that be so, I trust that—whatever may be their military successes, whatever may be their naval victories, whatever positions they may capture—that the North will consent to a peaceful separation; and the two States—which may both be mighty—two States inhabited by persons of different education, perhaps with a very different nature, but respecting each other—may each go on in a course of peace and prosperity which will benefit them, not only at the present time, but for centuriest a come. Should this be the case, I shall heartily rejoice; and I shall rejoice above all if during the contest we shall have done nothing to aggravate their misfortunes, whilst we have pursued a firm course—yet one of conciliation—showing that the respect which we entertained for both parties remains undiminished.
  LORD CAMPBELLremarked, that as Government had no further papers in their possession, it would not, of course, be possible to move for them. In the absence, therefore, of any question before the House, he had no desire, no right, to enter into controversy with the noble Lord upon the different points he had referred to.
  Motion (by leave of the House) withdrawn
  House adjourned at half-past Six o'clock, till To-morrow, half-past Ten o'clock.