Sitting of 23 April 1863

MINUTES.
NEW WRIT ISSUED—For Halifax v. James Stansfeld, esquire, Commissioner of the Admiralty.
NEW MEMBER SWORN — Lord Frederick John Fitzroy, for Thetford.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee.
WAYS AND MEANS—considered in Committee.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Poisoned Grain Prohibition [Bill 90].
Second Reading—Stock Certificates to Bearer [Bill 76]; Vaccination (Ireland) [Bill 70]; Local Government Supplemental [Bill 69]; Land Drainage (Provisional Orders) [Bill 85].
Committee—Bakehouses Regulation [Bill 54); Telegraphs [Bill 78].
Report—Bakehouses Regulation [Bill 54]; Telegraphs [Bill 78].

HIGHWAYS ACT.—QUESTION.
MR. HUNTsaid, he wished to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether it is competent for a Highway Board, constituted under the Highways Act (1862). to transact the business of the Board, after the first meeting of such Board, first, at any place out of the district; secondly, at any place situate within the limits of the district, but not being a constituent part of the district for the purposes of the Act?
SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, in reply, that there was no express provision in the Act with regard to the places at which the meetings of the District Board were to be held after the first meeting; but he apprehended that according to the usual practice as to meetings of Local Boards, it would not be right, even if it were within the letter of the law, that the meetings of the Highway Board should be held in places quite apart from the district in which it exercised its functions. The latter part of the Question of the hon. Member referred, he understood, to meetings held in places geographically within the highway district, and yet not actually constituting a part of it. It was quite clear it would be for the convenience of the Boards that meetings should be held in those places where the public business of the district was ordinarily transacted. There was no provision in the Act against that, but the subject was under consideration with a view to remove any doubt.

COLLECTION OF THE INCOME TAX.

  QUESTION.
  SIR JAMES FERGUSSONsaid, he would beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the
  574
  Exchequer, Whether there is any intention of altering the existing machinery by which the assessment for the Income Tax is imposed; and, if not, whether that assessment will in future be made under all the Schedules by the local authorities?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, in reply, that he understood the Question of the hon. Baronet referred principally, if not entirely, to Scotland. There were certain portions of Schedules C, D, and E in which the assessment was made by Special Commissioners and not by the Local Commissioners. There was no intention of making any alteration in the machinery by which the assessment was made. If at any time he brought forward any Motion for the alteration of the machinery as to England and Scotland, he would take care that full notice was given, and he should not wish to give such a notice except with the moral assurance of its meeting with general approval.
  SIR JAMES FERGUSSONsaid, he wished to know whether the assessment under Schedules A and B, which used to be made in Scotland by the local assessors, was to be restored to them?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: There is no intention of making any change as to the present procedure.

HOLYHEAD HARBOUR.—QUESTION.
COLONEL DUNNEsaid, he rose to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty, When the Returns ordered as to the Holyhead Packet Station, and Correspondence with the Dublin Steam Packet Company, will be laid upon the table of the House; and whether anything will be done, and when, to carry out the promised alterations in Holyhead Pier, for the purpose of securing the safety of the Mail Packets and the passengers landing from them?
MR. MILNER GIBSONsaid, that the control of Holyhead Harbour having been transferred by an Act of last Session from the Admiralty to the Board of Trade, it devolved upon him to answer the hon. and gallant Member. The correspondence in question was being prepared, and would soon be laid on the table. As to the promised alterations at the Pier, he was informed that the piles connecting the wooden jetty were completed. The structure which had been contemplated on the jetty was not being proceeded with, but some substitute for it was under consideration.
COLONEL DUNNEsaid, he wished to know whether something more effectual than the mere driving of these piles was not to be done?
MR. MILNER GIBSONsaid, the hon. and gallant Member's Question referred to "the promised alterations." The only alterations which he understood to have been promised by the Admiralty and the Treasury were the driving of piles to prevent the sea passing through the present jetty, and the erection of a roofed structure upon the jetty.

PRISON MINISTERS BILL.

  QUESTION.
  MR. R. LONGsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether he is willing to postpone his Motion for going into Committee To-morrow on the Prison Ministers Bill?
  SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, that as the Notices for To-morrow on going into Committee of Supply related to subjects which were likely to cause a good deal of discussion, he would postpone his Motion till Thursday next.

  AFFAIRS OF GREECE.—QUESTION.
  MR. BAILLIE COCHRANEsaid, he would beg to ask, Whether the noble Lord at the head of the Government can confirm the satisfactory intelligence which has appeared in different newspapers—namely, that the Government have been able to come to an intelligible settlement respecting the Throne of Greece, and also whether the report is correct that it is the intention of our Government to guarantee a loan on the occasion of the new King going to that country?
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: Sir, I cannot say that all the communications which have been passing with regard to the acceptance of the throne of Greece by Prince William of Denmark are quite concluded; but we have the best reason to believe that their conclusion will be satisfactory as respecting his acceptance of the throne. With reference to the latter part of the hon. Gentleman's question, those pecuniary arrangements are matters of detail, about which I cannot say anything.

  THE ELECTRIC LIGHT.—QUESTION.
  SIR JOHN PAKINGTONsaid, he wished to put a Question to the President of the Board of Trade connected with a promise
  576
  he had given on a former evening to produce some Returns. There has been some correspondence between the Trinity House and the Board of Trade on this subject, and he wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will produce it also?
  MR. MILNER GIBSONsaid, that the letter of the Board of Trade and the Report of the Trinity House Corporation in reply to it with regard to the Electric Light would be laid on the table. As to any further correspondence, he should like to refer to it before promising its production.

  SUPPLY.
  Order for Committee read.
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: I wish, Sir, to move that you leave the Chair, and in doing that I may say that perhaps those hon. Gentlemen who have given notice of Motions preliminary to going into Supply will have the goodness to postpone them. I am very anxious that the House should proceed with the Motion of which I have given notice, and it will be a great convenience to the public service if those hon. Members will consent to postpone theirs.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."

UNITED STATES—CONDUCT OF ADMIRAL WILKES.

  QUESTION.
  MR. ROEBUCK: Sir, I do not want to make any Motion, but I hope I shall not be precluded from asking a Question. I wish to put a Question to the noble Lord on the subject of which I gave him notice last Tuesday. It is not on the paper, but I gave him public notice, and he told me that he would accept my Question then as a notice. The Question I wish to put refers to matters now going on in the West Indian waters and very nearly affecting English trade. I allude to the proceedings of an Admiral in the United States service with respect to English merchant shipping going from an English port to a neutral port. I wish to preface my question with one or two observations, but I will not occupy the time of the House very long.
  MR. KNIGHTLEYsaid, he rose to order. He wished to know whether it was according to the courtesy of the House that the hon. and learned Gentleman should interpose without notice, after the appeal of the noble Lord, before going into Committee of Supply.
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: May I be just allowed to answer my hon. and learned Friend's Question?
  MR. ROEBUCK: I know the noble Lord is an older man than I am, but still, old as he is, he will not take me in in that way. I wish to make a few observations before I put the Question to the noble Lord. The question relates to the conduct of Admiral Wilkes. Sir, when the American war broke out, I may say, the leading minds of the English people—the large majority at least—felt a shock of pain at the quarrel between the various States of America. I may say for myself that that shock was of a very strong character, for all my early notions were that in America a great experiment was being made in government. I thought they had entered on that experiment in a way that mankind had never done before, and that if fortune would prevail in their favour, it would be shown that men were worthy of governing themselves. When the news came, and that great experiment was at an end—for it is at an end—my heart failed me, for then I was compelled to acknowledge that men, under the most favourable circumstances, had proved themselves unworthy of governing themselves. That was my feeling at that time, and my feeling was in favour of the North. Time went on, and their whole conduct was such as proved them not only unfit for the government of themselves, but unfit for the courtesies and the community of the civilized world. ["Oh, oh!"] Oh! yes, Sir, I know there are degenerate Englishmen who tike the part of the North against their own country; and whenever matters come into collision between America and England, their voice is raised on the side of America. ["Oh, oh!"] I can perfectly understand those cries—I am very glad to find that what I say touches the hon. Gentlemen opposite. It appears that the question of which I have given notice creates a great sensation among them. Well, Sir, the conduct of the North American dis-United States has been such as is humiliating to the people of England. The noble Lord has shown himself, hitherto, a friend of the honour, the dignity, and the prosperity of England. He never showed that more than in his conduct as the head of the Administration in the circumstances connected with the Trent. We have been subject to every species of violent language—not of insinuation, but of accusation. We were threatened with war, and King Cotton was
  578
  to crush us; he has tried his power, and King Cotton has failed. We resented an act insolent and overbearing; we called them to account, and they truckled in their answer. Another outrage has taken place, and by the same man who perpetrated the insult offered to our flag in the case of the Trent. A vessel leaves the English shore; the hon. Member for London (Mr. Crawford) opposite, says he has seen her papers, and her cargo was perfectly harmless. She was bound to a neutral port. She was seized by an American man-of-war, taken into an American port, and the expectations of the English merchant in his honourable trade have been utterly destroyed by the conduct of the American Government. I say that conduct of the American Government you ought to resent. But not only was this done, there were persons calling themselves English merchants who applied to; the American Minister for a permit to allow their ship to proceed in safety to its destination. That permit is granted, and why? Because that ship carried out arms to the Mexicans, to be used against our ally, France. Since then other men calling themselves English merchants have applied to the same authority for the same permit. They have been refused, and why? Because they are Englishmen, and because they are not carrying out arms to aid the Mexicans in the war, though they were trading to the same port. The permit, I repeat, was refused, and now I must say that Mr. Adams, the American Minister, is the Minister for Commerce in England. Sir, I would put it to the noble Lord, the man who has hitherto shown himself alive to the dignity and honour of England—I would ask him whether the Government of which he is the head has come to any determination in this matter; and if they have, whether he is able to tell Parliament what that determination is. Sir, I know the consequences of the action he may take. It may lead to war, and I, speaking here for the English people, am prepared for war. I know that language will strike the heart of the Peace party in this country, but it will also strike the hearts of the insolent people who govern America; and we shall have justice done to the honour and dignity of England, and the commerce of this country will no longer be subject to the overbearing and domineering insolence of an upstart race. The question I have to ask the noble Lord is, Whether the Government of which he is the head

  579
  have formed any determination with regard to the conduct of Admiral Wilkes; whether they have addressed any remonstrance to the American Government; and whether he is prepared now to state the course the Government have determined to pursue?
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: Sir, the House will have seen and understood from what has fallen from my hon. and learned Friend that the matter to which his Question relates is one of the greatest possible importance. All I can say is that it is receiving due consideration on the part of Her Majesty's Government, but I am not prepared at present to state what result Her Majesty's Government may come to.

CRICKET IN BATTERSEA PARK.

  QUESTION.
  MR. COXsaid, he wished to ask the Chief Commissioner of Works, Whether any orders have lately bean issued by him prohibiting the Public from playing at Cricket in Battersea Park, and giving to the Members of a Cricket Club the exclusive right of playing therein?
  MR. COWPERstated that his study had been to make the Parks as conducive as possible to the amusement and recreation of the public; and in Victoria, Battersea, Bushey, and Richmond Parks space was set apart for cricket, subject to regulations in order to prevent those who played from interfering with each other. In Battersea Park there were thirty acres of ground devoted to cricket. The best portion of that space, about seven acres, was reserved for matches, and about four matches could be played at a time. Another portion was reserved for the public at large; and the third part was reserved for clubs, each being allowed to spend their own money in enclosing the grounds. The Civil Service Club occupied one portion, and the remainder was allocated to, he thought, the other clubs. The Civil Service Club had not taken ground which had not been allotted to them. The club was very large, and it was but fair that the clerks in the London offices should have every means of recreation and amusement; perhaps in this way they might get more work out of them.

AMERICAN CRUISERS AND BRITISH MERCHANTMEN.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  MR. BENTINCKsaid, he rose to bring forward the Motion of which he had given
  580
  notice. In doing so he felt himself placed in a somewhat difficult position by the conduct of the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Roebuck). The hon. and learned Gentleman must have been aware of the notice which stood in his (Mr. Bentinck's) name on the paper, but he had not acted in a manner in accordance with the usual courtesy of the House, by forestalling a Motion of considerable importance by making it the subject of a Question. The hon. and learned Gentleman does not seem to be altogether careful in preserving his usual spotless character in that House.
  MR. ROEBUCKsaid, he rose to order. He objected to that language.
  MR. BENTINCKsaid, he was perfectly ready to state the grounds.
  MR. ROEBUCKsaid, he did not want the hon. Gentleman to state the grounds. He rose to order.
  MR. SPEAKERsaid, he had not heard any words of an objectionable character fall from the hon. Gentleman.
  MR. ROEBUCKsaid, he would then repeat them. The hon. Gentleman said the hon. and learned Member ought to be particularly careful to follow a course which would preserve his usual spotless character.
  MR. SPEAKER: If the hon. Member has said that the hon. and learned Member had done anything inconsistent with his character, that is not proper language.
  MR. BENTINCKsaid, he would be the last man to persist in a wrong course if he had entered upon one; and if the hon. and learned Member thought that he had said anything unfair towards him, he was ready in the most public manner, in that House, to state the grounds upon which he made the statement.
  MR. ROEBUCKsaid, he did not want any explanation.
  MR. BENTINCKsaid, he thought that the hon. and learned Gentleman had shown a sound discretion in foregoing an explanation. As he was saying before he was interrupted, he certainly felt himself placed in a position of some difficulty, because the hon. and learned Member had, to a certain extent, forestalled the answer which he was anxious to obtain from the noble Lord. The grounds upon which he had proposed to put the question rested upon a statement which appeared, a short time since, in The Times newspaper. It might be said that an article in a newspaper was not a ground upon which to found a Motion in that House; but he believed that most of those whom he addressed, whether or not

  581
  they agreed with the views expressed in that newspaper, would admit that it was a journal remarkable for the accuracy of its reports. Further, he had been enabled lo ascertain the perfect accuracy of that report by the evidence of the hon. Member for London, who was present upon the occasion referred to. He need hardly remind the House that anything that appeared in The Times newspaper was read in every town and village of this country, and probably in every city on the continent, and therefore anything that appeared in that paper obtained the utmost publicity. He was induced to go on to a certain extent with his question because there were certain details to which he thought the attention of the House ought to be called before they proceeded to discuss a question of international law which an hon. Member was to raise on the following evening. It would be impossible to enter upon that discussion, with the temper requisite for properly dealing with a subject of so difficult a nature, unless some further explanations were given by the Government. He was aware of the awkwardness of these questions, and he perfectly understood the disinclination of the noble Lord to enter upon a discussion of them; but he ventured to think that in such matters more harm was done by allowing the feelings of irritation which existed to continue day after day without any means being taken to allay them than would be caused by some explanation from the Government, which might have the effect of soothing irritation. The article he referred to appeared in The Times newspaper of the previous Friday. It referred to a deputation which waited upon the noble Lord at the head of the Foreign Office, introduced by the hon. Member for London (Mr. Crawford). He ventured to think that what passed at that interview was one of the most remarkable incidents ever published in the public journals. The statement, after detailing the manner in which the deputation was introduced, went on to say, that "while the United States Government have been seizing our vessels bound to Matamoras without a single article of contraband on hoard, Mr. Adams, their Minister at this Court, has been giving special licence for a ship to proceed from England to Matamoras free from interference by American cruisers, to carry supplies (which are stated to consist of arms and ammunition) for the service of the Mexicans in their war
  582
  against France." It then went on to stale that the hon. Member for London called the attention of the noble Lord to the position of the captain, officers, and supercargo of the Peterhoff, now in New York, who were stated to have been detained on board and not allowed to communicate either with the agents of the owners and merchants, or with the British Consul. The hon. Gentleman went on to show that the effect of that mode of proceeding would be greatly to encourage trade between the United States and Mexico, and entirely to put a stop to trade between England and the ports of the latter country. Then came a most remarkable letter, to which he would afterwards refer, from the American Minister, and the account went on to state that—
  "The immediate object the deputation had in view was to elicit from Her Majesty's Government some assurance of protection for the steamship Sea Queen, now detained by the owners at Falmouth awaiting a decision."
  And after adverting to the fact that despatches had been broken open on board other vessels seized, it was stated that a suggestion was made that the Government should place a mail agent on board each vessel bound to the port of Matamoras. He invited the House to consider what was the substance of that report. In the first place, it involved that the Federal Government held itself at liberty to seize vessels bound to Mexican ports, although not carrying contraband of war. It was also laid down that vessels bound to the same ports, with contraband of war intended for the use of the Mexicans against the French, were not to be liable to seizure by Federal cruisers. That, it might be said, was a point in which we had no interest, but it did appear to be a singular mode of neutrality, and one which it was well should be made known to the astute sovereign of France, although no doubt he had already learnt it from The Times. But he wished the House more particularly to observe that another result of that mode of dealing was to inflict a heavy blow upon the commercial interests of England, because the course pursued by the American Minister and the tone of his letter amounted simply to this, that it rested with him when and where and how the commerce of the country should be conducted. The letter of the American Minister was one of the most remarkable productions he had ever seen. It began by saying—
  "Amid the multitude of fraudulent and dis-

  583
  honest enterprises from this kingdom to furnish supplies to the rebels in the United States, through the pretence of a destination to some port in Mexico, it gives me pleasure to distinguish one which has a different and a creditable purpose."
  That purpose being to supply arms to the Mexicans to use against the French. With that they had nothing to do; but was the House prepared to accept such language as proper from a diplomatist of high position? The letter went on to say—
  "It is not the disposition of the United States Government to interfere in any way with an honest neutral trade."
  The idea of the American Minister of honesty and neutrality was remarkable. Everything was honest to suit his own purpose, and his neutrality consisted in supplying a neighbouring Power with contraband of war to be used against a country with which his own country was at peace. The letter was one which ought not to be sanctioned by the tacit assent of that House, and he thought it called for some immediate and decided expression of opinion from Her Majesty's Government. Those who had read The Times of that day would have observed, not only that the authenticity of that letter was fully confirmed, but an attempt was made, to a certain extent, not to apologize or to repudiate, but to do away with an impression that the American Minister was trying to adopt a tone of dictation as to the trade of the country. The only result of the second letter was to confirm the authenticity of the first; and he hoped, before the discussion of the next evening, they should have some expression of opinion from the Government as to the letter, and that either the noble Lord at the head of the Government, or the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs would state whether he found anything in that letter to which he took exception. Another important point was this:—That no man could read the American Minister's letter, giving a free pass to one vessel, without seeing that every vessel not so furnished would necessarily be liable to capture by the American cruisers. The commerce of the country was therefore bound hand and foot, unless their ships could obtain a free pass from the American Minister. That was a matter on which some information was desirable. One point brought forward by the deputation was, that if mail-bags were put on board English ships, and those mail-bags were afterwards opened by the Federal cruisers, the Federal emissaries in this country would probably send out letters of
  584
  such a character as to compromise the ship. He only mentioned that to show the estimation in which the Federals seemed to be held in England. But the deputation suggested, that in order to obviate the probability of seizure a mail agent should be put on board, with the view of certifying to the character and destination of the ship. It did not seem to strike the noble Earl that there was anything unusual in the proposition, or that, if complied with, it would place this country in a most humiliating position. He merely stated very quietly that he would consider the subject; but surely, when a proposal involving a direct insult to this country was made to a Minister of the Crown, it was not fitting language to answer that he would consider that proposal. It would be well that the House should know whether that was the way in which the Government generally would view it. Then the noble Earl's attention was called to the treatment of the persons taken on board the Peterhoff—a vessel the case of which had yet to be investigated, though the crew were dealt with as prisoners of war, and were shut up and deprived of all communication with the shore. That statement was made on the best authority; but how did the noble Earl receive it? One would suppose that any man who represented the feelings—or he would say the prejudices—of Englishmen would have at once expressed some indignation or disgust at such unheard-of treatment of his countrymen; but the noble Earl merely expressed his surprise at the facts laid before him. Now, surprise was certainly not the feeling which ought to have been predominant with him, and perhaps some Member of the Government would inform the House whether the Government merely shared the surprise, or whether they did not feel rather more strongly on the subject. The fact was, that the right of search by Federals had been changed into a right of capture. There was a levying of war against this country by capturing its mercantile marine, while the Federals screened themselves from all consequences by not having made an actual declaration of war against us. England was to let them capture her merchant ships whenever they were disposed to do so, but she was not to have the advantage—if advantage it might be called — of making reprisals. The effect of all this had been to increase the rate of insurance upon British ships above what

  585
  it was upon French ships. There was the whole ease in a nutshell, and he wanted to know whether the Government were as indifferent to these conditions as the noble Earl, or whether they did not rather share the indignation which was felt by the House and the country generally at the course taken by the Federal authorities. He was not blind to the difficulties of the subject. He was quite aware of the importance of exercising the greatest amount of caution. The noble Viscount was believed to be at all times disposed to protect the honour and interests of the country, but that feeling was not supposed to be shared in by all his Colleagues, and it was important that the House should know which of those views was at present predominant in the Cabinet. The silence of the Government on these questions produced a feeling of irritation, which would make it impossible, at a future time, dispassionately to consider the questions of international law which might arise. He wished therefore to know whether the Government intended at once to take such steps as would convince the people that the honour and the interests of this country would be duly cared for in their hands?
  MR. CRAWFORDsaid, that as the hon. Member had referred to the part which he had felt it his duty to take in reference to the Peterhoff, it would be expected that he should take part in the discussion. He should be ready to do so under proper circumstances, and at a proper time, but he entirely declined doing so at that moment, and for two reasons: — First, because of the very critical position in which these transactions placed the relations of this country and the United States; and secondly, because he had heard the noble Lord at the head of the Government state, in reply to the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield (Mr. Roebuck), that these matters were under the serious and anxious consideration of the Government. Knowing that to be the case, he could not but think that it would be in the highest degree inexpedient and indecorous on the part of that House to enter into anything like a detailed or prolonged discussion in reference to them. He earnestly advised the House not to continue such a discussion. He could only say be had heard with the greatest distaste, he might almost say with disgust, the sentiments expressed by the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield. He would add, that he could not admire the taste of
  586
  the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Bentinck) in persevering with the subject after the statement that had been made by the noble Lord at the head of the Government.
  MR. PEACOCKEsaid, it appeared to be the feeling of the House that the general discussion should not take place on that occasion; but he wished to call attention to the very undignified position in which Parliament was placed in having to discuss important questions when they had no other information respecting them than was contained in the money article of a newspaper. He wished therefore to know whether the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs would lay on the table of the House the papers connected with the question, and which then might be raised in a proper form; and, if it was agreeable to the House, he would move for the production of those papers. He also wished to know whether the hon. Gentleman had had any communication with Mr. Adams, and whether Mr. Adams had acknowledged the genuineness of the letter attributed to him? With regard to the carrying trade to Matamoras, that he believed was a more serious matter than the House were aware of. The facts were these:—Some months ago, as he was given to understand, the Mexican Government ordered supplies of arms in the United States. The Government of the United States, however, arrested the vessel which was to carry these arms. The Mexican Government—as well it might — remonstrated, whereupon Mr. Seward informed the Mexican Minister that he did not wish to deprive him of a supply of arms to curry on the war against France, but the United States wanted those arms for themselves. "If, however, added Mr. Seward, "you like to send over to England and get arms, we will give you every facility in our power;" and so this Mexican colonel and merchant, who was in the habit of buying arms, were sent over here provided with a letter to Mr. Adams, requesting that Minister to give them every assistance in his power, in order to obtain arms to help the Mexicans in their war with France. It was under these circumstances, and not from any individual action taken on his own responsibility, that Mr. Adams furnished the pass. When such statements as these were in circulation, it would allay irritation if the Government would frankly place the House in possession of all the information which was in their hands on the subject. Of course, I his object was to have laid on the table any

  587
  such papers as could be produced without any inconvenience to the public service. He would therefore conclude by moving for the production of papers that had passed between the Government and certain mercantile firms, with reference to the carriage of mails to Matamoras.
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, that She will be graciously pleased to give directions that there be laid before this House, Copy of any Correspondence between Earl Russell and any Mercantile Firms, relative to the conveyance of Mails to Matamoras,"
  — instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  MR. NEWDEGATEsaid, he felt it his duty to take the earliest opportunity of expressing his total dissent from the views of the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield (Mr. Roebuck). It would be calculated to prejudice the interests of both this country and the United States if it should go forth to the world that the House had, on an occasion when discussing matters relating to the conduct of the American Minister, suffered reflections to be made on the conduct of Americans generally, which must be offensive not only to those who supported the Federal Government, but to every American. He did not feel the disappointment which the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield had expressed with reference to the failure of the institutions of the United States. The hon. and learned Member spoke with the temper of a disappointed man. He (Mr. Newdegate) had never indulged the same hopes of those institutions which the hon. Gentleman had entertained, because he thought that the American people, by departing from the example which the constitution of this country afforded them, had introduced into their constitution an element of weakness, which had been manifested in a most remarkable manner, and from which consequences had ensued they must all regret; against these evils Englishmen were secured by the nature of the constitution under which they had the happiness of living. It was inexpedient, in the highest degree, to taunt those of their own blood on the other side of the Atlantic with misfortunes which we hoped, for their and for our own sake, would soon cease; nor did he agree with the hon. and learned
  588
  Member for Sheffield that the principle of self-government ought to be abandoned because the constitution of the United States had failed, for he hoped that the result of the present failure would produce an approximation, on the part of the American people, to those principles of government which could alone secure peace and prosperity. The misfortune of the constitution of the United States was that neither the people nor the Government had any recognised code of morality to which, as forming part of the constitution, they could refer as the basis of their laws and judicature, the best security for the maintenance of peace. He (Mr. Newdegate) was ready to support Her Majesty's Government in vindicating the honour of the country; bat if they were to engage in a contest with America, let them not be carried away by feelings of disappointment and spite, but enter on that step in a temper befitting the exertions and the misfortunes which it must entail.
  MR. LAYARD: The hon. Member for Maldon (Mr. Peacocke) stated it was highly inconvenient that a discussion on so important a subject as that now under consideration should be had on the money article of a newspaper. I quite agree with him; and therefore I am the more surprised that he should have risen in his place to continue it. It equally surprised me that the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Bentinck) should have proceeded with the subject after the answer given by the noble Lord at the head of the Government to the Question of the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield (Mr. Roebuck); and I am still more surprised that the hon. Member for Maldon should call for papers on a matter still under consideration, and of the gravity of that which is now under discussion. I can give no answer to the hon. Gentleman opposite further than that already given by the noble Lord; but there are one or two other points to which I feel it my duty to advert, with a view of answering some of the observations which have been addressed to the House. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Bentinck) said that the deputation which had waited on the noble Earl the Secretary for Foreign Affairs had made an insulting and humiliating proposal, to which proposal the noble Earl made no reply.
  MR. BENTINCK: I beg pardon. I did not say that the proposal was an insult to the noble Lord. I said it was an insult to the country.
  MR. LAYARD: I know the words of the hon. Gentleman were "insulting and humiliating." But the hon. Gentleman's correction makes the matter worse. For whatever the noble Earl might have done if the proposal were humiliating and insulting to himself personally, I feel certain that no hon. Member in this House who knows the noble Earl will believe that he is the man to bear patiently any proposal insulting or humiliating to this country. But I say that nothing either insulting or humiliating was put forward by way of proposal to Earl Russell. As hon. Gentlemen know, vessels leaving this country under a mail contract are accompanied by a Government mail agent. The proposal made by the deputation was that their vessels leaving this country with ship letters for Matamoras should have a mail agent on board. The noble Earl, as he felt bound to do when such a proposal was made to him, said, that it was one which required mature consideration. On such consideration it was found that great inconvenience would result from such an arrangement; and the reasons why this course would be open to grave inconvenience must be evident to the House. Vessels like the Peterhoff are different from those which sail under a mail contract. They are bound under an Act of Parliament to carry what is called a "ship-letter bag." The gentlemen who waited on Earl Russell represented, that if these vessels declined to take a ship-letter bag they would render themselves liable to a penalty; while if they carried one, their vessel might be seized and forfeited, owing to some document having been put in the bag which might compromise the ship that carried it. The gentlemen connected with the vessels have made a disingenuous and unfair statement with reference to those mail-bags. They would make it appear that the Government had deprived them against their wish of a privilege or a right, whereas the correspondence with the Government will show that it was the desire of the Government to relieve them at their own request from the difficulty in which they were placed, and that they still have the option of carrying the bags. If the House will permit me, I will read the correspondence which passed between the Post Office and the Foreign Office, and between the Foreign Office and those gentlemen. That correspondence will be laid on the table, and as the discussion has proceeded so far, it is important that no delay should take place in letting
  590
  the House know what has really taken place on the subject. Immediately after the deputation left the Foreign Secretary this communication was sent from the Foreign Office to the Post Office.
  MR. H. BAILLIE: I rise to order. I submit that the hon. Gentleman cannot read documents that have been moved for and not produced.
  MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Gentleman can state the contents of the documents which the Government is going to produce.
  MR. LAYARD: These documents will be laid on the table of the House. This is the communication from the Foreign Office to the Postmaster General:—
  "Foreign Office, April 16.
  "Sir,—I am directed by Earl Russell to request that you will state to the Postmaster General that it has been represented to his Lordship, by persons interested in vessels employed between this country and Matamoras, that the circumstance of those vessels being obliged to carry a ship-letter mail may in many cases have an injurious effect on the vessels if visited by United States ships of war, inasmuch as although the persons interested in such vessels and cargoes may, as far as matters are within their control, be well assured of the innocence of both, yet they can have no such assurance in regard to the contents of mails intrusted to them by the Post Office, which, for aught they know, may include correspondence to which the United States as a belligerent Power might fairly object. I am therefore to request that you will state to the Postmaster General that Lord Russell is of opinion that under the peculiar circumstances of the present time vessels bound to Matamoras, either from ports in this country or from ports in Her Majesty's Colonies and possessions, should be relieved from the obligation of carrying ship-letter mails; and if the Postmaster General should concur, Lord Russell would be glad to be informed of his doing so, in order that he may apprise the parties by whom there presentation was made to him.—I am, &c.,
  "E. HAMMOND.
  "F. Hill, Esq."
  To that letter the following reply was received from the Post Office:—
  "General Post Office, April 17.
  "Sir,—Having laid before the Postmaster General your letter of yesterday's date, I am directed by his Lordship to request that yon will state to Earl Russell that he sees no objection to the proposal made in that letter that, under the peculiar circumstances of the present time, vessels bound to Matamoras from ports in this country should be relieved from the obligation of carrying ship-letter mails, and orders will immediately be given, that for the present no ship-letter mail be put on board any vessel sailing for Matamoras, unless with the full concurrence of the commander. With respect to vessels sailing from ports in Her Majesty's Colonies and possessions, the Postmaster General would suggest that Earl Russell should communicate with the Secretary of State for the Colonies, as, except at Malta and Gibraltar, the, management of the posts in the Colonies is now

  591
  entirely under local control. As bearing upon the present question, I am to add that on the 2nd inst. the brokers of a steam-vessel called the Sea Queen, bound for Matamoras, wrote to this office stating that they should be glad to take a mail by her; but on the 11th inst. a further letter was received from them, pointing out, that for reasons similar to those mentioned in your letter the owners wished to decline taking the mails for which they bad previously applied. Before the receipt, how ever, of that letter, three mails, containing eight letters and two newspapers, had been put on board the ship at Gravesend, and the vessel had sailed. This circumstance was communicated to the brokers yesterday, but the Postmaster General has now directed a further letter to be written to them, informing them, that if they still desire that the mails should not be carried by the Sea Queen, and will instruct the commander to put them on shore at Falmouth (where it is understood the vessel is to call), his Lordship will authorize the Postmaster of Falmouth, by means of the electric telegraph, to receive the mails and to return them to London.—I am, &c., "F. HILL.
  "E. Hammond, Esq."
  On the same day this letter was written to Mr. Crawford—
  "Foreign Office, April 17, 1863.
  "Sir,—I am directed by Earl Russell to state to you, with reference to what passed at the interview which he had the pleasure of having with you yesterday, that he lost no time in suggesting to the Postmaster General that, under the peculiar circumstances of the present time, vessels bound to Matamoras from ports in this country should be released from the obligation of carrying ship-letter mails, and that he has been informed that in consequence of his communication orders will be immediately given, that for the present no ship-letter mails shall be put on board any vessel sailing for Matamoras, unless with the full concurrence of the commander."
  I have now to read a letter addressed to Mr. Spence, owner of the Sea Queen—
  "Foreign Office, April 17, 1863.
  "Sir,—I have laid before Earl Russell your letter of this day's date, requesting that instructions may he given for placing a Government mail agent in charge of the mail which has been put on board your vessel, the Sea Queen, which is now at Falmouth; and I am directed by his Lordship to state to you in reply, that Lord Russell has been informed by the Postmaster General that the brokers of the Sea Queen will be apprised, that if they desire that the mails should not be carried by the Sea Queen, and will instruct the commander to put them on shore at Falmouth, his Lordship will authorize the postmaster at Falmouth, by telegraph, to receive the mails and to return them to London. I am further to state to you, that, at the recommendation of Earl Russell, the Postmaster General will immediately give orders that no ship-letter mail be put on board any vessel sailing for Matamoras, unless with the full concurrence of the commander."
  An exactly similar letter was written to Messrs. Bennett and Wake—
  "Foreign Office, April 18, 1863.
  "Gentlemen,—I have laid before Earl Russell
  592
  your letter of yesterday's date, requesting that instructions may be given for placing a Government mail agent on board the Sea Queen, which is now at Falmouth; and I am directed to state to you in reply, that, at Lord Russell's recommendation, the Postmaster General will for the present relieve vessels proceeding to Matamoras from the obligation of carrying ship-letter mails."
  It is therefore clear to the House that it was left to the option of the owners of these vessels to carry ship mails or not; and what the Government has done was to relieve them from what they considered an unpleasant obligation. I am authorized by Lord Russell to correct a misrepresentation contained in the report to which the hon. Gentleman alluded. The noble Lord has been represented to have expressed his surprise at hearing the fact that the officers and crew had been treated as prisoners; but he must have been misunderstood, for all the facts had been laid before him, and had been read by him before he received the deputation. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that he need feel no alarm as to the honour and dignity of the country not being in safe keeping.
  MR. WHITESIDE: The hon. Gentleman, no doubt, has made a very ingenious speech, but I am surprised that he should have expressed surprise at everything which has taken place to-night. The only thing that did not surprise him was the answer of the noble Viscount. I wish to ask him one question:—Is it at all an unusual circumstance, or is it unbecoming, when events have happened which have arrested the attention of every man in the country, that hon. Members of this House should seek for information, not for the purpose—God forbid!—of stimulating to war, but for the purpose of getting at the facts and applying to them the principles of international law, and not hesitating to apply those principles against powerful as well as against weak States? I remember some years ago hearing a very distinguished orator making a speech on the affairs of the East. He sat below the gangway then, on that side of the House, and I recollect him saying, with great emphasis and effect, that if the Government had been manly and decided in the first instance, and if they had expressed clearly and firmly the opinion of England in reference to the conduct of Russia, the Crimean war might have been averted. I thought there was great force in what that hon. Gentleman said on that occasion; but, perhaps, the House will be surprised to find that that hon. Gentleman is now

  593
  the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs. I avail myself of his high authority, and I think that a clear expression of opinion, clearly but not intemperately conveyed, would not provoke war, but would avert it. But of this the hon. Member may he sure, that whenever any question arises touching the honour and interests of the country, the Members of this House will not fear to call for explicit information.
  SIR HUGH CAIRNS: Sir, I should have been well content to allow this conversation to come to an end—especially having regard to the Motion which the noble Viscount has given notice of his intention to bring forward in Committee of Supply—but for what has fallen from the hon. Under Secretary of State. The hon. Gentleman has thought it right to quote certain despatches which have passed between the Departments of the Government and the parties interested in these vessels. I do not know that much information has thereby been conveyed to us, for I think I recognised in them documents which I had previously read in the ordinary sources of information. When I read these despatches, I was under the impression that there must be some mistake, and I rise now to ask some Member of the Government to explain whether they mean to give colour to the idea that the circumstance of there being found in any mail-bag, carried by a merchant vessel from a port of this country to a neutral port, a letter regularly mailed and put into the bag, to be carried and delivered in the ordinary way, which, in the opinion of an American prize court, may be supposed to deserve the character of a treasonable or belligerent despatch, will justify the detention, trial, and perhaps forfeiture of the merchant vessel? Do the Government mean to give colour to that idea? There can be no mistake now as to the course which the Government has taken. The hon. Gentleman tells us that certain merchants have represented at the Foreign Office, that because they carry mail-bags, in their opinion those bags might be searched; and if letters were found in them partaking of a hostile character, their vessel might be condemned. The Foreign Secretary does not tell them that their idea is quite a mistaken one. He says, "Your suggestion is a very reasonable one, and I will at once communicate with the Postmaster General, and suggest to him that you shall be relieved from the responsibility of carrying a mail-bag." Let us come nearer home. There are mail-bags
  594
  carried in our steamers running between Dover and Calais. Do the Government mean to say that an American ship of war which happens to be cruising in the neighbourhood may overhaul a Dover packet, search it, and carry it into an American port, and that the letters in her mail-bag may be perused in the prize court, and the packet forfeited if, in the opinion of that prize court, they partake of a belligerent character? If that is the case, how is the commercial correspondence of this country to be carried on? The timidity of one firm, obliged by law at present to carry a mail-bag, leads them to represent to the Foreign Office the consequences which may follow to them; and the Post Office, moved by the Foreign Office, says, "You need not carry a bag at all." Other shipowners, of course, will do the same thing, and in a while we shall have every shipowner in the country relieved from the legal obligation to carry the commercial correspondence from this country to foreign ports. I trust we shall hear from the Government that there has been some mistake, and that this is not the view which they take.
  MR. MALINSsaid, the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs had deprecated the tone of the discussion. He had also said that from the answer of the noble Lord to the hon. Member for Sheffield, the House might be assured that the honour and interests of England were in safe keeping. He (Mr. Malins) did not think the House ought to be satisfied with so vague an answer. He, for one, felt himself humiliated every morning. In common with all Englishmen he felt humiliated day by day by the increasing evidences that the commerce of England was carried on by the sufferance of a foreign nation. How was the commercial correspondence of the country to be carried on if the Post Office was to relieve merchant vessels of the obligation imposed on them by law to carry mail-bags? Had this country become so timid that it dared not enforce this obligation to carry mail-bags, which was the only means our merchants had of carrying on correspondence with many foreign ports? The feelings of the country would not allow this matter to be trifled with, and they had a right to an explicit answer to this question:—Was the Government prepared to submit to the dictation of America, or all the Powers of the world united, or were we to carry on our trade,

  595
  as we always had done, in the manner in which we thought fit? He believed there was a general dissatisfaction with the answer which had been received, and which left them in a state of uncertainty as to whether or not they were succumbing in a disgraceful manner to apprehensions which had never influenced this country up to the present time. He, for one, hoped that he should never see the day in which this country would desist from carrying on its affairs, commercial or otherwise, in consequence of the dictation of foreign nations or any apprehension whatever. It was the duty of the Government to tell the merchants that the law must be obeyed, instead of authorizing them to infringe it and relieve them from their obligations to observe it.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERAL:—I should not have said a word, after what has fallen from the noble Lord at the head of the Government, but for the misapprehension into which my hon. and learned Friend the hon. Member for Belfast (Sir Hugh Cairns) seems to have fallen. I certainly was not prepared to hear that he drew from the correspondence read by my hon. Friend the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs the inference, which I think is entirely unwarranted by it, that the Government are prepared to admit that the United States are justified in capturing a vessel on the ground of the possibility that the mails which she carries by compulsion of law may contain letters which they may regard as of a hostile character; or, secondly, that if a ship were so captured, and no other reason appeared to justify her capture, she could be condemned for carrying such letters. I do not hesitate to say that that is a doctrine which the Government would not submit to for a moment. But without entering into the question of these recent captures, about which — until we know what there is to be said on both sides—it would be premature to give an opinion, let me remind the House that they have had before them, more than once, statements of the views entertained by Her Majesty's Government on the general principles which may be involved in these affairs, and from them they may be able, I conclude, to collect without difficulty the principles, upon which, in case of necessity, the Government would be prepared to act. On the 28th of November last year, Earl Russell, writing to Lord Lyons, placed upon record the minute of a conversation which had taken place some
  596
  time before between my noble Friend at the head of the Government and Mr. Adams, and in which my noble Friend is represented to have expressly stated —
  "That Her Majesty's Government could not permit any interference with any vessel, British or foreign, within British waters; that, with regard to vessels met with at sea, Her Majesty's Government did not mean to dispute the belligerent rights of the United States ships of war to search them, but that the exercise of that right, and of the right of detention in certain conditions, must in each case be dealt with according to the circumstances of the case; and that it was not necessary for him to discuss such matters then, because they were not in point; but that it would not do for the United States ships of war to harass British commerce on the high seas, under pretence of preventing the Confederates from receiving things that are contraband of war."
  That is what my noble Friend stated some time before November last; and the House will recollect that on the occasion of a certain seizure—that of the Adela—when it appeared that a kind of black list had been issued and that the cruisers of the Federal States had thought themselves justified in detaining vessels and carrying them into port for adjudication, not on the ground of any reasonable cause of suspicion discovered in course of a search, but on the ground of information received from this country, no time was lost in intimating that this was an abuse of belligerent rights to which Her Majesty's Government could not submit. Was it vindicated by Mr. Seward? Nothing of the kind. Mr. Seward issued instructions which, if they have been obeyed, will be an answer to the complaints now made. Those instructions were as follows: —
  "That when a visit is made, the vessel is not to be seized without a search carefully made, so far as to render it reasonable to believe that she is engaged in carrying contraband of war to the insurgents and to their ports, or otherwise violating the blockade; and that if it shall appear that she is actually bound and passing from one friendly or so-called neutral port to another, and not bound or proceeding to or from a port in the possession of the insurgents, then she cannot lawfully be seized."
  MR. Seward then proceeded to give directions as to what was to be done with mail-bags found on board any vessels which might be seized on any ground of suspicion appearing upon search, the effect of the instruction being that they would not be opened, but would be delivered to the agents of the Government to which they belonged, "upon the understanding that whatever is contraband, or important as evidence concerning the character of a cap-

  597
  tured vessel, will be remitted to the Prize Court, or to the Secretary of State at Washington." The House, therefore, will see that there is no controversy with respect to principle between the two Governments. The United States do not claim the right to intercept our trade with Mexico. [An hon. MEMBER: They have done so.] If they have done so, it is to be presumed, of course, that they will not attempt to vindicate or persevere in such a line of conduct. A few words now upon the correspondence which has been rend to the House. Certain British merchants engaged in the Mexican trade, which is in the same line with the contraband trade, but which in itself is perfectly innocent, said, they were apprehensive that they might be exposed to the inconvenience, delay, loss, and injury of capture, which in their case would be quite unjustifiable, but for which a pretext might possibly be found in the real or supposed contents of the letter-bags. Lord Russell, not at all admitting that any such pretext could justify a capture, saw that loss and injury might accrue to individuals from the mere fact of their being put in such a situation; and as no guarantee could be given against the possibility of any such unfounded pretensions on the part of American cruisers, he thought it reasonable to relieve them, if they wished it, from the obligation to carry letters. I am not now going into the question whether that was or was not a wise course to pursue, though I am quite prepared to justify it as a course which was considerate on the part of Lord Russell towards the persons who had applied to him, which involved no departure from the dignity of this country, and which certainly gave no countenance to the principle which my hon. and learned Friend has given me an opportunity of disclaiming. I thank my hon. and learned Friend for having stated that it appeared to him open to that construction. I am quite sure it did not seem so to the noble Lord; and the fact that it has impressed others in a different manner is a reason why we should be glad to have an opportunity of publicly disclaiming the interpretation which has been put upon that part of the correspondence.
  LORD ROBERT CECIL: The speech of the hon. and learned Gentleman would be satisfactory to the House if we could say it was founded on facts. What are the facts? These outrages on the British flag are not things of yesterday; they be-
  598
  gan in June last. The Adela was seized, in precisely the same manner as the Peterhoff and the Dolphin, nine months ago. The Peterhoff was seized two or three months ago. Complaints were made before Easter, and yet the hon. and learned Solicitor General tells us it is not fitting we should ask the Government whether they have made up their minds on the subject, because they have not had time to ascertain the facts. I suppose they will have ascertained the facts some time within the next five years. The hon. and learned Solicitor General has not even so much as given us the slightest intimation relative to the period when the facts of the case may be discovered. There has been ample opportunity for correspondence with the United States on the subject of the Peterhoff. We know there has been a correspondence with respect to the Adela. She is still before the prize court, but we know that our Government, though they have declared her seizure unjustifiable, have not attempted to exact reparation for the wrong. But what I wish to impress upon the hon. and learned Gentleman is, that while our Government are idling and thinking what they shall do, Mr. Adams is master of the field. The trade of England is carried on now by the permits of a foreigner. In the City an extra premium of insurance on ships trading between English ports and Nassau is taken, against the risk of being unjustifiably overhauled by American cruisers. There is now a direct tax upon British merchants, charged every day, for no other reason than because Admiral Wilkes chooses to perform piratical acts upon the high seas. The hon. and learned Solicitor General has told us that Mr. Seward has repudiated the doctrine which has so justly been denounced to-night. What is the use of Mr. Seward repudiating doctrines one day, if he puts them in practice the next? It is an easy way of conducting the Government of a country, to tell foreign nations you intend to adopt one course, and then to instruct your Admirals to adopt another. Mr. Seward first informs our Envoy that ships trading between two neutral ports will not be touched, and then he sends Admiral Wilkes, already notorious for his outrage upon British vessels, to a station where he carries out the very doctrine which is said to be repudiated. It is therefore of no use for the hon. and learned Gentleman to tell us that he has obtained a verbal repudiation of the doctrine from Mr. Seward, while acts in contravention of

  599
  it are done every day. A good deal has been said about the Peterhoff, but very little of the Dolphin. The latter was a ship trading between Liverpool and Nassau, and there is evidence to prove that she was honest in her intention, and that her trade was legitimate. She was stopped by an American cruiser. The captain and crew were taken prisoners and carried on board the American man-of-war. Her cargo was broken up by the American seamen, and the British sailors were absolutely turned out destitute at the harbour of St. Thomas. It is under that insult you are now meekly resting. We have just heard a gallant speech from the Solicitor General. I have no doubt from him it is sincere. I was glad to hear doctrines worthy of England propounded by his mouth, but I cannot forget that this is not the first time we have had gallant speeches from the same quarter. Three weeks ago we heard a speech from the hon. and learned Gentleman which we on this side cheered vociferously. Next morning some misgivings arose in my mind, when I saw that the American organs were not very angry with the hon. and learned Gentleman. It occurred to me that his gallant speech might be nothing but a mask for a cringing policy. The hon. and learned Gentleman publicly declared the right of British shipowners to be free from American interference in their own ports, but the moment he had obtained the cheers of the House of Commons, the Foreign Office, at the bidding of Mr. Adams, sent down detectives to do Mr. Adams service in the dockyards and on the quays of Liverpool. I have no doubt that precedent will be followed; I have no doubt that the gallant speech of the Solicitor General, and the assurance of the Under Secretary that British honour is safe in his hands, will be succeeded by an absolute surrender of all the rights which belong to our merchants and shipowners. There can be no doubt, at least, that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sheffield has been completely justified for bringing on this discussion, which I think will be useful, because it will show the Government that they cannot trifle with the feelings of the country, We all of us have a deep respect for the noble Lord at the head of the Government, but we know historically he has appeared in two characters. There is the Lord Palmerston of the Russian and Chinese wars, the Lord Palmerston who Lords it over Greece and Brazil; but there is also the Lord Palmerston who introduced the Con-
  600
  spiracy Bill. We wish to know which of these two characters the noble Lord intends to fill on the present occasion. The country waits anxiously for his decision, and I can assure him the country expects it immediately.
  MR. OSBORNE: Sir, I do not know what meaning the noble Lord puts upon the word "useful," but I think a more mischievous debate never took place than that which has been raised by the two warlike lawyers who represent Sheffield and Wallingford. In proportion, Sir, as we are treading almost on the living ashes of a war, we are bound to be the more careful in the language we use; and I wish that the noble Lord, who can make valiant speeches too, although he twits others for making them, had shown a little of that better part of valour —discretion. If at such a time as this we are to go on reviewing American institutions, inflaming the American Government, and casting out taunts as to cases in respect to which we have not yet the papers to inform us, I do not see how any Government can prevent our being plunged into a war. Sir, I am no degenerate Englishman, no Member of the Peace party; but as an independent Member of Parliament I do not think I risk the respect or the dignity due to that position by disclaiming altogether the sentiments uttered by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sheffield, and asking the House to drop this discussion and proceed to the business into which we ought to have gone long before. We all have confidence in the noble Lord as a War Minister. Leave the matter in his hands, and do not let us precipitate a question which may assume unusual proportions.
  MR. PEACOCKEsaid, he would consent, as the papers were to be produced, to withdraw his Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

INCOME TAX ON CHARITIES.

  OBSERVATIONS.
  SIR HENRY WILLOUGHBYsaid, he was not about to say a single word on our relations with America; but there was a question of some importance to which he wished to call the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The right hon. Gentleman proposed to obtain a portion of his revenue for the year by a tax on charitable institutions. Having been applied to for information by persons connected with some of those bodies, he wished to know

  601
  in what shape the right hon. Gentleman proposed to raise that question. The matter was a serious one to those institutions, many of which were not in a very flourishing state, owing, among other causes, perhaps, to the diversion of the stream of charity to the cotton districts. He was told that the new impost would take yearly no less a sum than £1,500 or £1,600 from the funds of one at least of the larger hospitals. Their case ought, therefore, to be fairly considered.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that in answering the question of the hon. Baronet he should not enter into any of the particulars to which he had referred, further than to say than an institution which would have to pay £1,500 or £1,600 a year must he in the receipt of between £50,000 and £60,000 annually, and therefore was not entirely without the means of taking some share in the public burdens. His proposal was a proposal which would go in modification of certain clauses of the Income Tax Act, and he had no choice but to raise the question by Bill. He would seek to pass a general Resolution that night, and to have it reported on the following night. If that were done, the Bill would be in the hands of Members and open to the view of the public on Saturday morning. The hon. Baronet could then gather from the clauses, which would not be very long or very complicated, the nature and effect of the enactments contemplated by the Government, and in Committee or at any subsequent stage of the Bill he would be ready to answer specific questions.
  Main Question put, and agreed to.

SUPPLY—MEMORIAL TO THE LATE PRINCE CONSORT.
SUPPLY considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: Sir. I rise to move the Resolution of which I have given notice for the grant of £50,000 to Her Majesty towards the expense of erecting a suitable memorial to the late Prince Consort. We all recollect the effect, the stunning effect produced on the public mind about a year and a half ago by the announcement that the country had lost the late Prince Consort. The event struck a gloom into every household — it inspired with deep grief the heart of every subject of Her Majesty. There was no one who was I not sensible that the nation had sustained
602
a loss, a great and irreparable loss, and indeed all felt the same as if they had themselves lost some dear friend or near relation. On what that loss was to Her Gracious Majesty I shall not presume to dilate. There are truths which are only weakened by any attempt to enforce them; there are feelings too sacred to allow of any attempt to explain them. It would be a kind of sacrilege to draw aside the veil by which the depth and intensity of those feelings are shrouded from the public gaze. But, Sir, everybody felt—the whole nation felt—that it was an occasion on which it was becoming, that both for the satisfaction of the national sentiment and as a tribute of respect to the Sovereign, some permanent and substantial memorial should be erected to perpetuate the virtues of the great man who had been taken from us. A public subscription was accordingly raised. The late Lord Mayor placed himself at the head of the Committee by which the management of its detail was conducted, and contributions poured in from every part of the country according to the means of those who desired to testify their feelings on the subject. It was from the beginning the intention of Her Majesty's Government not to leave the commemoration of a great national loss simply and entirely to the result of private subscription. It appeared to them fitting, that in addition to anything which might proceed from private impulse, there should be something which, coming from a Vote of Parliament, would be a more completely national tribute to the memory of the Prince whom we had lost. What should be the amount to be proposed to Parliament had evidently to depend upon two things:—First, upon what might be the result of the private contributions; and next, upon what might be the probable cost of such a memorial as might be deemed suitable for the occasion. But no sooner was the subscription begun than the Committee who undertook its management made it publicly known that the selection of the kind and character of the memorial should, as was fitting, be left to the feelings and judgment of the Queen. Well, Sir, various circumstances occurred which diverted into other channels those means which, perhaps, might otherwise have flown into this subscription. That great and magnificent, act of public generosity by which the distressed workpeople of Lancashire have been in a great degree supported took away, probably, much which might otherwise have been devoted to this

603
object. The amount at present contributed, I believe, I may state at something between £50,000 and £60,000. With a view of determining what should be the nature and character of the memorial, Her Majesty requested four eminent persons to undertake the task of inviting designs, and considering and reporting upon them; and the Commissioners appointed for this purpose were the Earl of Derby, the Earl of Clarendon, Sir Charles Eastlake, and the late Lord Mayor. The Commissioners invited a certain number of architects to send in plans of that which they thought fitting for the occasion. Those plans consisted of two parts. The idea which each of the architects endeavoured to work out comprised, in the first place, what may be more particularly called a personal memorial; and, in the next place, a building devoted to those pursuits of science and art in which the late lamented Prince himself took so great an interest. It was found, however, that those plans would have involved an expenditure considerably larger than could be met either by the subscriptions raised or by that addition to them which Her Majesty's Government thought might be fairly asked from and fairly granted by this House; and therefore, upon further and mature consideration, the Commissioners have reported that they would recommend to Her Majesty the abandonment of that portion of the proposed memorial which was to consist of a hall of science and art, and to confine it to that personal part which was to have formed, as it were, the balance or complement to the other. The place which has been recommended by the Commissioners to Her Majesty is that part of Hyde Park which lies between the public road to Kensington and the carriage drive through the Park, and that portion of it which lies opposite to the ground belonging to the Commissioners of the Exhibition for 1851. That site is one which, in all respects, is suited to the purpose. It will not interfere with any other arrangement, and, from its position, is calculated to display anything erected upon it. Now, Sir, in regard to the practice of raising monuments as memorials to great and distinguished men, I will only say that it is a practice which has prevailed in all countries and in all nations. In this country there are many examples of such memorials, and it has often and well been said that such memorials answer a double purpose—they not only gratify and satisfy the feelings of
604
those who are contemporaries with the great man whose merits are to be recorded; they not only gratify the feelings of admiration, love, and affection which are felt by those who raise the memorials, but they stand as an example to future generations, to stimulate them to emulate those virtues and high qualities which were possessed by the person in whose honour the memorials are erected. Now, there never was, perhaps, a person who, in that double capacity, was more fitted to have his memory recorded than the late Prince Consort. When a memorial is erected to some great naval or military commander, who has lost his life in winning a great victory, conducive to the safety and dignity of his country, or when it is erected to a more fortunate commander, whom Providence has led uninjured through a hundred battles, and who has the happiness to finish his days in honour and repose, in the midst of a grateful and admiring country—in either case the example can be followed but by few, because the occasions which present themselves, even in those services, to men to display these great qualities, which have rendered illustrious the name of a hero, happen but seldom. They can only happen in war, and it is to be hoped such occasions, in any country, and at any time, may be few. But the high qualities and virtues displayed by the late Prince Consort were virtues that belong to every class of society, from the highest to the lowest, which come into operation every day of every man's life, and which no man can soy the position in which he is placed does not afford him ample and honourable opportunity of carrying into action. His Royal Highness had qualities of the highest order. He would have been a distinguished man in whatever position of life it might have been his fortune to be placed. He contributed as much as it was possible for any man to do, in the performance of those various and extensive duties which fell to his lot, to the welfare, happiness, and prosperity of the country. Well, then, I say that upon every principle, whether it be to gratify and satisfy the feelings of the country, or whether it be to hold out an example to every man of the exercise of those eminent qualities, those forbearing qualities which accompanied the highest talents and the loftiest and most honourable ambition on the part of the late Prince Consort, and which may be practised by any man, and when practised constitute the surest means by which to

605
reach the respect and honour of our countrymen — I say whichever be the object to be gained, I am sure hon. Members must feel that they are accomplishing an object worthy of this House. And then, when we consider the deep affection which is felt by the whole nation for our gracious Sovereign, when we recollect what a deep and irreparable loss she has sustained by the death of one who was the foundation of the happiness of the happiest possible life—when we consider how the feelings of the country sympathize with Her Majesty in that great and irreparable loss, I am persuaded I am not wrong in saying that this House can never be and never has been a more true exponent and organ of the feelings of the country than when they tender, as I trust they will do this evening, respectfully to Her Majesty a token of the deep sympathy which they feel for her misfortune, and of their heartfelt attachment to her person. It may, indeed, be said of the people of this country that they feel they have a Sovereign of whom, without any disparagement to Her Majesty, it may be said they consider her as one of themselves—her joys are considered by them as their joys, her sorrows are partaken by them as sorrows of their own; and I am persuaded, therefore, I am not appealing in vain to the good feelings and loyalty of this House in proposing that we should this evening vote that sum which would be necessary to complete the amount of the subscription raised to the sum which has been estimated as the probable cost of such a memorial as Her Majesty will select for erection to the memory of the late Prince Consort. The Commissioners have made their Report, and they recommend, as I have stated, a single and personal memorial. I believe the calculated expense of it will be something like £110,000. The subscription reaches nearly to £60,000; and if to that we add £50,000, which we think it our duty to propose to Parliament, I believe the amount will be amply sufficient to erect a memorial which shall be worthy of the country by whom it is raised, and, at the same time, do adequate honour to the late Prince Consort, and be soothing to the feelings of the Sovereign to whom this House and country are so dutifully and loyally attached.
MR. TITEsaid, he wished to say a few words on the question, in reply to the many inquiries made by hon. Members. The extent of the public subscription had
606
been greatly modified by the fact that many towns and localities had determined to have memorials of their own. The city, for instance, that he had the honour to represent (Bath) instead of sending the large amount which had been subscribed to London, had erected a wing to an hospital and called it the Albert wing. With reference to the drawings now exhibited for the testimonial itself, they were works of much commendation, and were the best he (Mr. Tite) had ever seen. The suggestion of the site was due to Mr. Pennethorne; and as to the designs, the Commission appointed by Her Majesty had applied to certain architects to advise them: he was one of that body, who recommended a limited competition, and the designs now exhibited were the result of that recommendation. The designs displayed a great variety of architectural talent. That which had received the greatest amount of approbation was the cross, designed by Mr. Gilbert Scott, and it had accordingly been recommended for adoption. The House probably knew that he (Mr. Tite) differed from many other persons with regard to the use of Gothic architecture for secular buildings; but for a building of the kind in question nothing could be more appropriate, and nothing more elegant. It was of a sacred character, and would be associated with some of our best recollections, as it was designed in imitation of the monuments erected by King Edward I. to his Queen Eleanor. With regard to the character of public monuments generally, the best examples were to be found at Berlin—as that of Frederick I., by Ranch; the iron cross on the Kreuzberg, and the monument to the Queen of Prussia at Charlottenburg. The designs that were sent in were various in character, but, as he had said, upon the whole were highly creditable to their authors. He wished, however, to correct one mistake. It had been supposed that the monumental cross was to be 300ft. in height, whereas in fact it would only be 150ft.; and the work would, he believed, be one that would be satisfactory to the nation, creditable to the architect, and a worthy memorial of the illustrious Prince.
MR. CONINGHAMsaid, he believed that the reason why the public fund had been found insufficient was because the public did not approve the plans that had been submitted for carrying out the memorial. If anything of a useful character had been proposed, calculated to benefit

607
posterity, the public subscriptions would have been doubled and even trebled. The monuments in the metropolis in the form of statues had been so unsatisfactory that any sensible man would desire that any memorial raised to him should be of a nature calculated to benefit posterity. He hoped it was not too late to reconsider the matter. At first a monstrous monolith was proposed, and now it was a still more monstrous Eleanor cross. It was difficult to say which was least calculated for the purpose. The Times newspaper had taken up the question in a most dogmatic spirit. At first it had endeavoured to force the monolith upon the public by publishing minatory letters threatening a grant from Parliament if subscriptions were not given to a sufficient amount; and now it defended the Eleanor cross, and professed to know better than the architect himself, for nothing less would suit the venerable ladies of Printing-house Square, as the hon. Member for Bridgewater called them, than 300 feet in height. Mere size and costliness were no recommendations, and he hoped it was not too late for the Committee to reconsider the question, and to recommend to Her Majesty, who, as far as he knew, had no fixed or definite opinion upon the subject, a memorial which should not only perpetuate the memory of the deceased Prince, but should prove a lasting benefit to future generations.
MR. DISRAELI: Sir, I cannot agree with the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Coningham) as to the causes he has assigned for the inadequacy of the public contributions for this object; nor as to the principle upon which this monument should be elevated. I think Her Majesty's Government have, upon the whole, taken a well-considered and judicious course in this matter, which was not one altogether free from embarrassment. The object, indeed, of the memorial is simple, and one of which all approve; but no doubt, from the manner in which it was originally proposed, it had become involved with some circumstances which rendered the course of the Government rather difficult. Sir, I have always felt confident that the common sense of the House would extricate us from that difficulty, and I am gratified to see that Her Majesty's Government are of the same temper, and that by appealing to the House with a proposition which is clear and comprehensible, they have terminated a state
608
of affairs not altogether satisfactory. No one can doubt the real sympathy that pervaded the country when the great calamity occurred. Indeed, that is scarcely an adequate expression to describe the emotion—it was a feeling rather of anguish—anguish for the loss of the Prince who was departed, and equally so for those who wore left lone and desolate. Sir, I think there was upon that occasion every desire in the country to express, as far as its contributions could do so, the feelings of the nation. But it is to be observed that at the moment the sympathy of the country was of a personal character. The loss was go sudden, so unexpected, that the natural emotions of the community were all directed to the personal character of him who had passed away. The peerless husband, the perfect father, the master whose yoke was gentleness—the wise and faithful counsellor of the Sovereign, who was his consort—these were the traits in the character of the Prince that attached and appealed to all hearts; and while there was a general desire, by public contributions, to show a sense of those qualities, every community felt that it was equally a judge of those virtues with the metropolis; and there was an immense amount of local subscriptions, which, although inconveniently, were naturally, dedicated to the ornament or utility of the district in which the subscriptions were raised. For example, every person who had a benevolent scheme for raising an hospital or founding a school seized that opportunity of general sympathy and sorrow, and upon the merits of the Prince whom we had lost made a successful appeal for funds which they would not otherwise have obtained. That is the reason why the public contributions were not directed to one centre, and why, with no definite object sufficiently held before the observation of the country, the public contributions were not of an amount adequate to carry out the object now desired. But as time drew on, something of the influence of posterity was exercised upon the opinion of the country, and it became conscious that it had lost, not merely a man of virtuous and benignant character, who had exercised the fine qualities he possessed for the advantage of the community of which he was a prominent member, but it felt that it had lost a man of a very original and peculiar character, who had exercised a great influence upon the age, and which it felt as time advanced would have been still more

609
sensibly experienced. The character of Prince Albert was peculiar in this respect, that he combined two great qualities which are generally considered to be incompatible, and combined those qualities in a high degree. He united the faculty of contemplation with the talent of action, and was equally remarkable for profundity of thought and promptitude of organization. Add to these qualities all the virtues of the heart, and the House will see that the character thus composed was a very remarkable one. He brought this peculiar temperament to act upon the public mind for purposes of great moment, but of great difficulty. The task which the Prince proposed to himself was to extend the knowledge, refine the taste, and enlarge the sympathies of a proud and ancient people. Had he not been gifted with deep thought and a singular facility and happiness of applying and mastering details, be could not have succeeded so fully as he did in those efforts, the results of which we shall find so much the greater as time goes on. Such being now the impression of the country—that we have lost not simply an accomplished and benignant Prince, but one of those minds which influence their age and mould the character of a people—a strong feeling prevails that a memorial should be raised in the metropolis of the Empire. I believe that that desire is very general, and therefore the Government has taken a course which the country is not only perfectly prepared for, but expected and required. For my own part, I cannot agree with the hon. Member for Brighton (Mr. Coningham), that the public contributions should be devoted to what is called some purpose of utility. That appears to me to be a fallacious and narrow-minded principle. A purpose of utility means that you should endow some charity or erect some building which may illustrate some isolated feeling and feature in the Prince's life. But a public memorial, such as the country requires, should be of a universal and complete description. It should apply to the general sentiments of the country, and should represent, as far as art can represent, the full career of the man, be that future generations may, as the noble Lord observed, behold a monument which may serve for their instruction and encouragement. It should, as it were, represent the character of the Prince himself; in the harmony of its proportions, in the beauty of its ornament, and in its enduring nature. It should be something
610
direct, significant, and choice; so that those who come after us may say, this is the typo and testimony of a sublime life and a transcendent career, and thus they were recognised by a grateful and admiring people!
MR. GREGORYsaid, he was disposed to agree with the hon. Member for I Brighton (Mr. Coningham) as to the reason why the subscription did not amount to a sufficient sum to effect its object. It arose from an apprehension that the plans adopted were not likely to do credit to the illustrious person whose loss the nation deplored. He regretted that the plans had not been, in the first instance, submitted to the House, and the necessary Vote asked for, because he was afraid lest an impression should have been created, that because there had been a deficiency in the subscriptions, there had been a lack of public zeal to do honour to the Prince. As an Irish Member, he was perfectly certain that the Vote would be well received in his country. So accurately balanced was the mind of the illustrious Prince, so just was he in his thoughts as in all his actions, that he never, throughout his whole career, made use of an expression calculated to give offence to any man in Ireland, of whatever politics or whatever religion. He therefore rejoiced that the Government had determined to aid in erecting a monument, and he hoped it would be of such a character as to do honour to the memory of the great Prince whose loss they deplored.
MR. LIDDELLsaid, he felt assured that the House would readily grant the money for a monument, provided they were satisfied that it would be worthy of the object it was intended to commemorate. Although the architects recognised elegance of form and beauty of proportion as characteristic of the Eleanor Cross, it might be doubted whether those characteristics would be preserved if the proportions were multiplied in one of gigantic dimensions, he should like, therefore, to know whether it was definitively settled that an Eleanor Cross of three hundred feet high should be erected.
MR. TITEsaid, the cross was to be one hundred and fifty feet high, Mr. Scott himself did not desire greater dimensions.
MR. LIDDELLsaid, he hoped, at least, that the Government would submit definite plans to the House.
MR. GARNETTsaid, he also trusted that the Government would acquaint the House with the exact design of the monument which was proposed. It appeared to him to be a matter of serious question whether an Eleanor Cross was the fittest memorial for the Prince who had been taken from them.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: The subscriptions were raised on the distinct understanding that the style and character of the monument should be left entirely to Her Majesty. It is obvious, that unless the subscribers were to meet for the purpose of determining what should be the form of the memorial, their opinion on the subject could not be taken. It is now proposed to add to the fund on precisely the same conditions as those on which it was originally raised. We are tendering this grant to Her Majesty as a token of our sympathy with her in the hour of bereavement, and in order to enable her to gratify her natural feelings. We ought not therefore to impose our notions upon Her Majesty, but ought to leave it to herself to choose the monument which she may deem most suitable.
SIR MORTON PETOsaid, he had seen the design of the proposed monument, and in his opinion it was impossible to conceive anything more beautiful and more appropriate. But he doubted whether £110,000 would be sufficient to have it executed in the style which they should desire to see it. If Mr. Scott was to be allowed that latitude which he ought to have in a matter of the kind, with respect to the choice of stone, and other points, he doubted whether the addition of £50,000 would be sufficient; but the House would not hesitate, if necessary, to double that sum, to enable Her Majesty to carry out the design in a manner worthy of the House and the country.
ADMIRAL DUNCOMBEsaid, he hoped that the grant would be quite unconditional. Should it happen that £50,000 was insufficient to complete the design, there would be no difficulty in obtaining the assent of the House to a supplementary grant.
SIR GEORGE BOWYERsaid, he fully agreed that the House ought not to interfere with the mode in which the grant was to be expended. Besides, he never knew any public work carried on under the direction of the House which turned out satisfactorily. The best wav to insure
612
the failure of the monument was by leaving its erection to the House of Commons.
MR. CONINGHAMsaid, that he had not wished to interfere in any way with the wishes of Her Majesty; he had quite understood that he was discussing and criticising the recommendations of the Commissioners.
MR. POTTSsaid, he would suggest that the words "not exceeding" should be expunged from the Resolution.
(1.) Resolved, Nemine Contradicente,
That a sum, not exceeding £50,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1864, towards the Expense of a National Memorial for His late Royal Highness the Prince Consort.

SUPPLY—EXCHEQUER BONDS.
(2.) £85,925, Expedition to Kertch and Yenikale.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: I now rise. Sir, to make the other Motion of which I have given notice. The House will recollect that there was considerable discussion last year upon the subject of the Kertch and Yenikale prize money, and that great complaints were made of the long delay which had taken place in deciding whether this prize money should be granted, upon what principles, and in what proportion. The question arose out of the transactions of 1855. A joint expedition of French and English troops and ships took possession of Kertch, and opened the passage to the Sea of Azoff; and this led to the operations which were afterwards so successfully carried on in the interior of that sea. A great deal of valuable property was taken, consisting of about £70,000 worth of coals, machinery of great value, guns, and stores of other descriptions. The coals were used by the British and French ships of war nearly in equal proportions. The machinery was applied to the service of the British navy, and was of the greatest use in the course of the operations which followed, up to the termination of the war; and a very large sum was saved to the public by the means which that machinery gave of keeping in repair, upon the spot, the fleet employed in the Black Sea. Part of that machinery is now at Gibraltar, and is used and available for the public service. The value of stores which were captured was estimated at about £119,000, includ-

613
ing in that the £60,000 or £70,000 which was the estimated value of the coals. But one-half of these coals was consumed by the French navy, and their value must be deducted in calculating the sum which was taken possession of, and liable to be distributed to the seamen and soldiers of the two services. That reduced the amount to about £85,000. Now, there was a considerable discussion between the Treasury and the Admiralty with regard to the claims which the two services had for a Vote of this House, in compensation for the stores which were thus taken from them and applied to the public service. It was thought at one time, that the question being rather an intricate one, it ought to be referred to a court of law; but, upon further communication with the Law Officers of the Crown, and upon further consideration, Her Majesty's Government came to the conclusion that the claim was irresistible, that it would be confirmed by a court of law, and that there was no reason why the delay and expenses incident to an appeal to a court of law should be thrown upon the parties. It was determined therefore to propose, in the course of this Session, a Vote of this House; and the Vote which I am now proposing is calculated according to the value of the stores which wore seized by our sailors and troops at Kertch and Yenikale, and applied to the public service, and in respect of which the seamen and troops engaged had a claim to compensation. The proportion in which the two services were engaged was about two to one — that is to say the navy represented two-thirds of the expedition, and the military one-third; and therefore what we propose is, that the £85,000, which I am now asking the House to vote, shall be divided in that proportion between the two services.
COLONEL DUNNEsaid, he was happy to find that the grant would at last be made to the troops and seamen engaged in the Kertch and Yenikale expedition. It was seven years since the capture took place, and it was lamentable that in all cases of prize money such delays should occur, so that the persons entitled often died in want and misery before the money was distributed. In the present instance he hoped that the ordinary rules which guided the distribution of prize money would not be departed from.
Vote agreed to.
(3.) £1,000,000, to pay off and discharge Exchequer Bonds.
Vote agreed to.
House resumed.
Resolutions to be reported To-morrow; Committee to sit again To-morrow.

WAYS AND MEANS.
Order for Committee read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
MR. LINDSAYsaid, he had placed on the paper a notice with respect to the sugar duties; but as he had no objection to the Budget on the whole, he thought it would be more convenient if he took an opportunity of stating his views on the particular subject to which he referred in Committee.

THE INCOME TAX.—RESOLUTION.
MR. ROEBUCK: Like my hon. Friend, I have no objection to the Budget as a whole. I believe it is a very good one for the country; but as I want to have the opinion of the House upon a general proposition. I must submit it before you, Sir, leave the Chair. The principle which I wish this House to affirm is this—that on a renewal of the income tax a lower charge should be imposed on precarious than that placed on permanent incomes. The whole thing lies in so narrow a space that I shall not occupy the time of the House for many minutes. I assume the general proposition that taxation ought to be levied on every man according to his ability to pay it. That, I know, is a general proposition which is subject to several exceptions. The Chancellor of the Exchequer may, however, say, ''Your proposition is a fair one; but there are so many anomalies in the imposition of the income tax, that if you remove only one of them, you do very little good, and therefore I think you had better leave the matter as it is." Now, I am not prepared to acquiesce in that conclusion. Let me illustrate the argument. I will suppose a roundabout road to a particular spot, and that a person proposes an alteration which will not make it perfectly straight or the shortest road possible. If it is said to him, "Why do you seek to alter the road? You cannot make it straight." His answer ought to be, "I cannot make it straight, but I can approximate to some straightness, and pray permit me to effect the alteration." I want to direct the at-

615
tention of the House to the class of persons on whom the Chancellor of the Exchequer places the great burden of his taxes. That class is composed of persons of small income. The great mass of the taxation of the country is not derived from your millionaires or men of thousands, but from your men of hundreds. For the present, I will direct my consideration to your men of £200 a year. A man of this class has to maintain appearances, he has to bring up and educate his family, and to provide for them in case of his death. If he derives his £200 a year from a permanent source, it remains; but I come to a case on which I speak with feelings arising from personal experience. I ask you to consider the case of a man earning an income by the labour either of his intellect or his hands. All at once the intelligent mind or the cunning hand of that man may be rendered powerless. He can then do nothing; and from being a bread-winner he becomes merely a bread-eater. The man with a permanent income has no thought on his mind that there is a probability or a possibility of his family being reduced to want; but that is a thought which, from morning to night and night to morning, works on the mind of a man with an income of £200 a year from precarious sources. There are thousands of our countrymen in that position. To meet such cases, I ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to do what a Colleague of his now dead, Mr. James Wilson, proposed—namely, to divide incomes into three classes:—First, income derived from capital; secondly, income derived from trade in which both capital and ability are used; and thirdly, income derived from mere labour either of the intellect or the hand. It is not just to tax those three classes alike. Suppose the case of a lawyer. He goes through a laborious education for a great period of his life—say up to the age of fifty. That man fights against the world for his very existence; and has he arrives at the age when fortune may smile upon him, he comes on a high tide of business. But, after a few years of prosperity, he is suddenly stricken down; and then he is a burden to himself, and his children are unprovided for. It may be said that the alteration I propose would do away with the surplus. I dare say it would; but I have such confidence in the financial ability of the right hon. Gentleman, that I feel certain he could raise an equal amount of money in a much less unjust manner. I ask him to do but justice, which is in his
616
power, and take away one of the many miseries of the man who by his labour, intelligence, honour, and integrity earns from a precarious source an income for the support of his family. With those few words I beg to move "That in the opinion of this House the Tax imposed on precarious Incomes should be lower than that imposed on permanent Incomes."
Amendment proposed,
To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "in the opinion of this House, the Tax imposed on precarious Incomes should be lower than that imposed on permanent incomes,"
—instead thereof.
Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Sir, I was desirous to know whether any hon. Member wished to speak on the Motion of my hon. and learned Friend, as I was anxious to answer any observations that might be addressed to the House in support of the proposition with which the hon. and learned Gentleman concluded. I have listened with attention and respect to the speech of my hon. and learned Friend, who has become the organ of expression of a feeling that has long prevailed in this country, that prevails at the present moment, and that I believe will continue to prevail as long as the income tax remains in existence. The question whether that tax will always remain is not now the question; but I think, from its nature, a certain amount of discontent is not only to be recognised as a matter of fact, but is so natural, so excusable, and is supported by so many indications which, on the surface at least, appear to give foundation to it, that we may look upon it as practically inseparable from the nature of the tax itself. With respect to myself, I feel that I am personally disabled from acceding to the Motion of the hon. and learned Gentleman. I could not honestly be a party to such a Motion; I could not undertake to give it effect. Partly from the nature of the office which I now fill, and partly from other circumstances, it has been my lot to give more time and attention to the objections against the present mode of levying the income tax than, perhaps, any other Member of this House. Immediately before the time I assumed the office which I now fill, a proposition, such as the one made

617
by the hon. and learned Gentleman, had been made under such high authority, and under circumstances of such peculiar advantage, that the Government of which I was a Member felt it their duty not to decline such a proposition till they had convinced themselves by a process of exhaustion that no such method was practicable. Therefore, I am not prepared to be the instrument to give effect to such a proposition as that now before the House, or as that which has been made by my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Hubbard); but that is not a reason why such Motions should not be brought under the consideration of the House. My hon. and learned Friend has anticipated what he supposes to be my answer —namely, that there are so many anomalies in the imposition of the income tax, it would not be worth while to remove one or two of them. That is a most ingenious way of stating my case, but it is not my objection. My objection is, that by removing one or two anomalies we should be introducing three or four, and that these three or four anomalies would leave us in a worse position after our trouble than we were in before. To use a somewhat pedantic expression, I never held the views of an optimist in reference to the income tax. I have never shut my eyes to the difficulties which attend its collection, or to the objections to which it is open. The income tax is objectionable because it is direct; it is objectionable because it is inquisitorial, and it always must be inquisitorial, though we sacrifice a great deal of income in order to render it as little inquisitorial as possible; and it is objectionable because it is unequal, but this disadvantage it has in common with indirect taxes and all other taxes which men with precarious incomes have to pay. If a man is not able to pay his income tax, neither can he afford the duty on tea and sugar. The two stand exactly on the same footing, and the same argument applies to each. The tax is objectionable because it leads to fraud—a charge which, I am sorry to say, experience convinces me cannot be exaggerated in its gravity and extent. But, with all these disadvantages, it is after all a tax as the country feels which is founded on principle. The equality of the rate of taxation is n principle, and the fact that it has existed so long with equal rates is of itself a great advantage. When I said lately that the back suited itself to the burden, I did not mean to say that
618
the burden ceased to be a burden, but that in matters of taxation usage and tradition are of great practical importance, and that novelty in a subject of difficulty is of itself, though not a conclusive, a serious objection. This equality of the tax on equal incomes is a principle for the purpose of taxation; and if we depart from it, we must try to find some other. On what ether principle can we take a stand? I cannot subscribe to the doctrine of the hon. and learned Gentleman that this matter lies within a nutshell. On the contrary, I do not think there is a more complex organism in any kingdom of nature or civilization than that organism which represents the diversity of proprietary or possessorial interests in this country; and the machinery by which we get at the income of each man must be of the most delicate and difficult character. If we get rid of the principle of equality, I know of but one other principle which has primâ facie sufficient plausibility to recommend itself to the judgment of reasonable men. My hon. and learned Friend's principle I understand to be this — that people should pay in proportion as they could afford, and that after having paid the tax their circumstances should remain relative to each other just the same as before. A consistent attempt was made some ten or twelve years ago by bold and resolute men, who did not flinch from any difficulties, to reduce this principle into practice by a careful calculation of the real value of each man's income. Different kinds of property were to be compared; different kinds of income, and, as I suppose, different degrees of health, different ages were to be compared. A comparison was to be drawn between different landlords, between merchants, between farmers and shopkeepers, and between professions — nay, perhaps, between one lawyer and another, between one clergyman and another, and one military man and another. All were to be reduced by an ingenious calculation to something in the nature of an absolute standard. The fate of that plan, however, was an unhappy one. It did not succeed before the Committee before which it was fully considered and discussed, though it was started under very favourable auspices. When the Committee of 1851 was appointed, the public mind was disposed to fasten on something of the kind, and it was only on the condition of granting the Committee that my right hon. Friend who was Chancellor of the Exchequer at the time then obtained a renewal of the in-

619
come tax. The plan failed, and it has never been taken up by any of the later income tax reformers. The plan of the hon. and learned Gentleman assimilates in some degree to the plan of the hon. Member for Buckingham, though the first has the advantage for the relief of precarious incomes, and certainly goes more home to the feelings than the relief of industrial incomes, when we consider what many industrial incomes are. We were all touched, I am sure, by the illustration which my hon. and learned Friend used. Though we must feel comparatively satisfied that my hon. and learned Friend still retains his place with a remarkable return of his former vigour, we must still deeply regret that talents such as his should have met with any obstacle in the course of their full and bright development. If we are to proceed to the relief of precarious incomes, we must take first the case of professional men. It is the strongest, because, generally speaking, persons in professions, not so much when they are on the top of the wave of success as in their first struggles, are obliged to live close up to their incomes, and even beyond them. I have heard gentlemen, in the medical profession for instance, now of great eminence, mention the number of years through which they have had to struggle on some independent resources of their own before they obtained a subsistence from their profession, and the same thing is true of the law. Though there are exceptions, on the whole the class of professional men are obliged to live near the limits of their incomes, and of the vast process of accumulation going on in the country but a small portion of the result is in the hands of, or invested for, professional men. It often happens, however, that phrases which are good for a popular purpose are of no value for the purposes of legislation. Let us suppose that my hon. and learned Friend, in striving to relieve precarious incomes, commences by professional men and confines himself first entirely to that class. But, as soon as ever he began to apply his principle, it would break down; for how would he define "professional" men? Is a clerk a professional man? Is a bookkeeper or a curate a professional man? If they are not professional men, then you have done nothing by this change but introduce a new anomaly. Suppose you settle that they are, then you get into another difficulty on the other side, because the incomes of these classes are not precarious. For instance, the income of a
620
Government; clerk is not precarious; and if the plan be adopted, you must furnish us with new definitions of the term "precarious" and "professional," and I say that that task is not only difficult, but impossible. Let us take another case. I deny that precarious income of itself gives a title to be taxed at a lower rate. For the purposes of this argument the landed proprietors may be divided into two classes. There is one class of them whose estates lie in districts where there are no mineral treasures, and where, consequently, they inherit an agricultural income. The property of the other class is situated in the mining districts, and valuable seams of coal and ironstone run under their estates. Although their income is large, it is precarious, because it fluctuates exceedingly, according to the state of trade and a variety of circumstances which it is unnecessary to enumerate. Is a landed proprietor with rich mines on his estate better entitled to be taxed at a less rate on his aggregate income than the man who has simply an agricultural property and has found no minerals beneath his estate? To legislate in that sense would be to introduce a new inequality, and one rather worse than those which at present exist. But let us compare two much larger classes of cases—the class of landed proprietors and the class of merchants and traders. Let us say that A has £1,000 a year from land, and B £1,000 a year from trade. I am told that B has got a precarious income—an income which may diminish or disappear altogether; but that A rejoices in a permanent income. The argument is that I should therefore give a remission of taxation to B; which means, to use plain language, that in order to relieve B, I should put an additional weight upon A. What, however, is the average condition of a man with £1,000 a year in land as compared with that of a man with £1,000 a year from trade? Every man in this highly-wrought state of society must live according to what I may call his social expectations. It is useless to speak of the naked figure of his income; you must look at it with reference to his place in society, to the claims of his friends, neighbours, and family, to the social expectations which constitute the law he is obliged to conform to in the expenditure of his money. I have no hesitation in saying, then, that the station in life of a man with £1,000 a year from trade, is in three cases out of every four, totally different from that of a man with £1,000 a year

621
in land. The trader is not compelled to spend as much money; he is not expected to do so; he belongs to a different class of society altogether. If you want to find a parallel in the trading or commercial community to a man who has £1,000 a year in land, you will find it only among the men who have £2,000, £3,000, or £4.000 a year from trade. I contend, therefore, that it is not allowable to compare the positions with equal incomes, when, as a general rule, the social position is entirely different. Remember, also, that a land income as a general rule, is unprogressive, while an income derived from trade is exactly the reverse. Whence come those £60,000,000 a year we have recently added to the income of the country? They do not come from the professions, from the officers of the army and navy, from clergymen, or from the increased wealth of our landed proprietors. The greater part of them — and I rejoice to think it—consists of the accumulations of English industry and intelligence applied to trade. Let us examine another case, What do you say to the owners of house property? They are a large class, many of them wholly dependent upon house property—small houses, cottages, hack streets in towns—and at present they pay the whole income tax. Is their income precarious or not? I have a high opinion of the ability and ingenuity of the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield, but I think he would find it extremely difficult to deal with the question in what category he should place house property. Any change must involve that inquisitorial investigation which has hitherto formed one of the principal objections to the tax. The proposition of my hon. and learned Friend would oblige us to give a large remission to the owners of house property, who are at present taxed in a proportion extremely burdensome, and that remission would he arrived at through an almost intolerable inquiry. The investigation in the case of trade is bad enough, though it usually works in favour of the taxpayer; but in the case of house property there could absolutely be no escape whatever. After all, when we go to the root of the matter, we find that propositions like the one before us really mean graduated taxes. That is their true development. The whole strength of the argument, when you pursue it to its first elements, depends upon this: there is a relative poverty among men which you are bound to consider, and to which you must adjust the incidence of
622
your taxes. There is nothing at all that is wicked in the principle as an abstract principle. If it can be shown that a scale of taxation can he established, which within moderate bounds shall make the rich pay a larger rate than the poor, I should see nothing unjust in such a proposition. But I should ask two questions regarding it: First, whether it was practicable; and secondly, whether it was safe. I believe it would not only be impracticable, but generally destructive in its operation to the whole principle of property, to the principle of accumulation, and through that principle, to industry itself, and therefore to the interests of both poor and rich. The objections to graduated taxation are sometimes called theoretical, but they are altogether practical. In Mr. Pitt's time, and down till quite recently, the house tax was graduated. There was no danger in that; confiscation could not be practised under the form of a house tax. But when you apply the principle of graduation to a tax on incomes, except in the limited case in which we are able to do it fortified by tradition—as in regard to incomes below £200 or £150, where, by the force of tradition, it can be kept within safe bounds — when, I say, you adopt it as the general rule of your legislation, it means merely universal war, a universal scramble among all classes, every one endeavouring to relieve himself at the expense of his neighbour, and an end being put to all social peace, and to any common principle on which the burdens of the State can be adjusted. It is in these mischiefs that the apparently innocent proposition of my hon. and learned Friend would land us. His plan would lead us along a road which has that, and nothing else than that, for its termination. He may fairly disclaim that as his intention; but never has his plan, or any of these plans, assumed the form of a scheme of taxation propounded by the executive Government, or a responsible Minister. It is all very well for Gentlemen to exercise their ingenuity by drawing out schemes on a sheet of paper, showing how easily difficulties may be overcome. They are but fighting the air. It is only when a Minister undertakes to propose such a plan standing at this box, and when every mind is directed to sifting the matter thoroughly, "bolting it to the bran," and working it out to all its conclusions, that the difficulties and dangers of such a project are fully developed. At the same time, I do not say

623
that other Gentlemen may not see their I way through these difficulties with which I am wholly unable to grapple. I entirely allow that this is a question which the hon. and learned Gentleman is entitled to raise and the House to deal with. I can only express strongly the deliberate conviction at which I have arrived, and from which I do not feel justified in departing; and as a person officially responsible for the finances of the country, I cannot admit what I conceive to be a dangerous popular delusion.
MR. MALINSsaid, that as he belonged to the class of men who possessed precarious incomes, it was natural to suppose that on the first view of the subject he would support the proposition of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sheffield, but he felt that that Resolution involved the general question of graduated taxation, and he did not consider it possible to devise a mode of graduating the income tax. He belonged to a profession whose income was of all others the most precarious, and he had pointed out to an hon. Friend, a Member of the House, and of the same profession, though of a different branch of it, how dissimilar were their respective positions. In the case of a solicitor, if he was sick, his business went on without interruption by means of his clerks, and his income suffered little or nothing; whereas in the case of a gentleman practising at the bar, if he were unable to attend to his business through ill-health, every farthing of his income stopped for the time being. That was also the case with a numerous class of professional men—such as physicians, and so on. But if the principle of graduation were once admitted, there was no reason why it should not be applied to all the other direct and indirect taxes. Why, for example, should a man with a precarious income pay the same rate of duty on his tea as the man with a permanent income? The income tax produced, say, £10,000,000 sterling, and the other sources of revenue £60,000,000. If the principle of graduation was just and good, why were they not to extend it to the £60,000,000 as well as the £10,000,000? The fact was, the whole thing was impracticable, and the more they investigated the subject the more they would see the impossibility of carrying out that notion of perfect justice in matters of taxation as between different classes which some people had in their minds. If A obtained £5,000 a year from his trade or pro-
624
fession, and B only £500 a year from land, where would he the justice of relieving A, and not also relieving B from a higher scale of income tax? No human ingenuity could devise a scheme which should meet all cases, and there were many precarious incomes, such for instance as the incomes of bankers, solicitors, and others, which, although precarious in their nature, were almost as certain as the fixed income derivable from land, and the owners of which, if they died the next day, would transmit to their posterity their incomes with almost as much certainty as the landowner. He rejoiced to find the Chancellor of the Exchequer entering upon the path of reduction of the income tax, and he hoped that next year he would be able to continue in that course, for be believed, that if it were reduced to the rate of 6d. in the pound, the people would submit to it with cheerfulness, and continue to bear it as long as the exigencies of the State required. If they could not adapt the income tax to the means of every man, attempts to adapt it to a small section of the community would not bear the test of examination.
MR. BASSsaid, that no one contended that it was possible to make the income tax absolutely just in geometrical proportions; but it was contended that they could get rid of palpable injustice, such as taxing property worth £1,000 at the same amount as property worth £30,000, or thirty years' purchase. He had heard, for the first time, the argument that they were bound to favour the landed interest on account of the social position which they had to maintain; and if it were a good argument, it should be carried further, and a less amount of tea and wine duty exacted from that class of the community. He thought, that by some such proposition as that of the hon. and learned Gentleman they could arrive at an approximation to justice in levying the income tax, which at present was absolutely unjust. As to the objection to discrimination, the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer already discriminated in favour of the lower class of incomes; and when it was said that the discrimination was founded upon tradition, he hardly thought the income tax had existed long enough to be entitled to claim a traditional solidity which forbad all change. He saw no difficulty as to mines on account of the uncertain value of mineral property, because in the rating of houses

625
and lands a difference was every day made in favour of the former for that very reason. If they were willing to do justice in the matter of the income tax, nothing could be more easy. He would engage to give a scale of assessment of not more than two or three steps, which would he more satisfactory to the ratepayers, and produce more revenue to the Exchequer.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
MR. HUBBARDsaid, the House had on so many occasions granted him its indulgence, that however strong the provocation to join in the discussion raised by the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield, he had abstained from trespassing on their kindness. Having heard every possible plea against the adjustment of the income tax, and having offered, as he believed, a sufficient rejoinder to those pleas, he had nothing more to say upon the subject, save to express his belief that the time would come when his views would find acceptance in the House. The Motion of the hon. and learned Member for Sheffield being withdrawn, he might, without impropriety, now offer some remarks upon the financial statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. In presenting that statement to the House, the right hon. Gentleman confessed, with great frankness, that the main features of his plan, did not claim the merit of originality, and were only the reflex of public expectation. Those words, far from detracting, enhanced the merit of the right hon. Gentleman; for if anything could be satisfactory to the House, it must be to feel that they could place confidence in the discernment of the Minister of the Crown to fulfil anticipations which the public strongly desired, he heard without astonishment, and with great satisfaction, the announcement of those concessions which the right hon. Gentleman proposed to make. The concession of 2d. in the pound on the income tax was a gift which had been generally expected, and for which the right hon. Gentleman would be generally thanked. The reduction of 5d. in the duty on tea would afford a tangible relief on the cost of an essential commodity. Those imposts on trade, under which merchants had been suffering not without complaint, had been gracefully conceded, and thus ended those features of the Budget which were the subject of general expectation. Passing to those which were not expected, he must express his regret, that having relinquished a commercial grievance, the
626
right hon. Gentleman had thought it worth while to invent a social annoyance in so small a matter as a tax for licences to sell wines and spirits in clubs. He understood the right hon. Gentleman to propose that tax in order to put clubs on an equality with taverns, ale-houses, and hotels, with which, as he said, they came into competition. He took a different view of the purpose and nature of clubs. They were not places where spirits and wines were sold as a matter of business for profit, and it was only by sales for profit that they could be deemed to come in competition with taverns and hotels. A club was the aggregate social establishment of those who were its members. The wine drunk at a club was drunk there instead of at home. It was wine which had been paid for by the members, and the bill was merely an accurate mode of distributing the charge for the future replenishment of the stock. He ventured to think that there was no affinity between a club and a public house, and he trusted the Chancellor of the Exchequer would re consider that portion of his plan, remembering that the interest on the money paid into the Exchequer by clubs as duty upon their wines far exceeded the amount of the imposts proposed to be placed upon them. The most important feature of the Budget was the re-adjustment of the tax on incomes between £60 and £200. If he had ever had any clients in the efforts which he had made to remove some of the inequalities of the income tax, they were certainly among those who would be relieved by the arrangement which the Chancellor of the Exchequer now proposed, and it was on record that he had proposed a plan of relief literally in matter and in mode the same as the right hon. Gentleman now asked the House to adopt. But, however gratified he might be to find his own wishes carried out in that respect, he was far from venturing to assume that the right hon. Gentleman, in taking that step, accepted the principle upon which he advocated it. The right hon. Gentleman, while abating £60 from the assessable incomes of small traders and small stipends, proposed the same abatement for incomes derived from permanent sources; and while thus escaping any complicity with the principle of concession to industrial earnings as such, the right hon. Gentleman had committed himself to some extent to the principle of a graduated income tax, against which he had hitherto always contended. Taking

627
the proposed concession, however, in its effect upon industrial incomes, he felt most grateful for it, because it conferred on 280,000 out of 400,000 taxed under Schedule D and E the precise measure of relief he sought to obtain for them. The Chancellor of the Exchequer had now removed from those who were taxed up to £200 a year in Schedule D and E all pretence of complaint and all pretext for fraud; but what would be said for those with incomes above £200? A new point of temptation had been created, and at that point the inducement to falsify would be felt with redoubled force. Small incomes were not those in which fraud had been most flagrant. The cases in which fraud and misrepresentation existed in the most aggravated degree had reference to incomes considerably higher. In the last Report of the Commissioners of Inland Revenue a state-was made which would raise the most melancholy feelings, showing the discrepancy between the sums at which certain persons had returned their own profits, and the sums at which they were ultimately charged with income tax by the Inland Revenue officers. He would read to the House some of the most marked of these. Under Schedule D, one person who returned £400 was charged and paid on £1,500 without appeal; another who returned £750 paid on £1,600; another returned £800, and paid on £2,000; another returned £1,000, and paid on £3,000; another returned £2,200, and paid on £5,000; another returned £6,000, and paid on £10,000 without appeal. That was a melancholy exhibition of the fraud and misrepresentation which prevailed with reference to the higher incomes; yet with reference to incomes such as these no inducement was proposed, no measure taken which might lead to more truthful returns. He objected to that part of the financial scheme which related to the conversion of the savings bank monies into terminable annuities. When the question of the Post Office savings banks was under discussion, he had several times endeavoured to seize an opportunity of expressing his opinions on that point; but the Bill came on for discussion at half past twelve o'clock, when no one would be either heard or reported. But the right hon. Gentleman now proposed to take larger powers with regard to the funds of the savings banks in general.
MR. AYRTONsaid, he rose to order. The Savings Banks Bill was among the
628
Orders of the Day, and could not then be regularly discussed.
MR. HUBBARDsaid, he was in the hands of the House; but in one of the most interesting portions of his Budget the right hon. Gentleman had pointed to that measure as a means of disposing of a certain portion of the revenue of the country, and he could not well discuss the Budget without touching on this question. It might safely he assumed that the savings hanks deposits would increase with the increasing population and wealth of the country, and that the banks would require a constant accession of fresh investments. Terminable annuities were therefore most unsuitable investments for the savings banks, seeing that they every year restored a portion of the capital to be re-invested. Every one who was acquainted with business knew that nothing could be more costly than the constant buying and selling of funded securities, and especially for the Government, which never went into the money market except at a disadvantage. The right hon. Gentleman declared that terminable annuities were a most desirable security for the savings bank to hold with a view to the benefit of the public. He disputed that proposition, and he would give the House some idea of the history of terminable annuities, for they were not an institution of yesterday. Up to the introduction of the income tax terminable annuities were securities in considerable demand, but from 1842 the disposal of these annuities for terms of years became almost nominal. It was true that annuities for life were still disposed of to a small extent, old women always requiring annuities for life without much regard for the tax upon their capital, and about fifty or sixty thousand pounds' worth were still disposed of yearly; but annuities for terms of years, which formerly were sold to the extent of millions, were now almost entirely neglected. In 1857 they were sold to the extent of £400; in 1858, £1,800; in 1859. £1,200; in 1860, £2,506; in 1861, £500; and in 1862, £537. The creation of annuities terminable with years was practically annihilated by the operation of the income tax on the capital repaid. So much for the beneficial dealings in terminable annuities through the public market. Then, as to the loans for fortifications. The noble Lord at the head of the Government proposed to raise £10,000,000 by way of terminable anuu-

629
ities. [The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER: £2,000,000.] Ten million was the sum to be ultimately raised; and when a Bill was introduced to sanction the borrowing of two millions on terminable annuities, he (Mr. Hubbard) had assured the Government they would never effect such a loan. He now held in his hand a Return of monies (£2,070,000) raised under the Fortifications Loan Act at an interest of 3¾ per cent upon an issue of terminable annuities; but to whom were these annuities issued? They were disposed of, truly, but not in the open market, not on the Stock Exchange. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, for the Treasury, had sold them to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, for the savings banks, upon terms agreed between them. he had been much struck with the appeal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to tradition in support of his attempt at graduation, and he had observed that in that as in other cases the right hon. Gentleman was willing to refer to tradition when it happened to be favourable to the proposal he was making, and he had on former occasions invoked the shade of Mr. Pitt to stand between him and some threatening assailant of his scheme of taxation. But is tradition always to be trusted? What was Mr. Pitt's authority upon the subject of a sinking fund? In 1786 Mr. Pitt introduced his Bill for establishing a sinking fund, and entreated that the "House would solemnly pledge itself not to listen to a proposal for the repeal of the law on any pretence whatever." No appeal could be more impressive than that which Mr. Pitt made for the maintenance of the Kinking fund, which two years afterwards was found to be a delusion. That delusion, however, kept its hold upon the public mind for years, and as late as 1823 the House of Commons voted £5,000,000 for the sinking fund of that year. In 1828 the amount voted was reduced to £3,000,000; but in the following year the Vote was swept away altogether, and it was determined to apply only the actual surplus of revenue to the reduction of the National Debt. In 1855, when the Government proposed a loan of £16,000,000, one feature of the plan was a sinking fund of £1,000,000. That part of the project was met by a direct negative by the hon. and learned Member for Suffolk (Sir FitzRoy Kelly), and in the course of the debate Mr. Ricardo denounced the principle of finance which established a forced sinking fund in "the shape of terminable
630
annuities." The present Chancellor of the Exchequer himself opposed the sinking fund clause upon the ground of the in expediency of provisions of this nature: for if peace occurred, and there were a surplus, the clause would be unnecessary; if there were no surplus, the clause would be injurious. Under these circumstances, he hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would not persist in seeking the power of converting £5,000,000 of savings hank money into terminable annuities.
There was subject for congratulation in the right hon. Gentleman's expectation of a surplus, and he could not help remarking the earnestness of the appeal the right hon. Gentleman made that the House would not diminish that surplus. Seeing, however, the notice of the hon. Member for Dudley (Mr. Sheridan) on the paper for a reduction of the insurance duty, he thought that the appeal was made with a view to bind the House to a determination not to part with any portion of the surplus and so defeat the Motion he had referred to, but be had himself so strong a conviction of the justice, propriety, and expediency of a diminution of that tax that he confessed he was disappointed that its reduction had not been proposed in the Budget. He next came to the proposed tax on charities, which bad been exempt from taxation hitherto. When he heard the description given by the right hon. Gentlemen of the charities which were no longer to be exempt from taxation, he could not but feel sensible, that although he elicited a cheer, he was not fairly depicting the origin and nature of these charitable endowments. The description which the right hon. Gentleman had given of the vanity of those who made charitable bequests, desiring to have their names painted up in big letters, and the selfishness of the administrators who feasted in the name of charity, was not at all true of either class. No doubt, there were some who were actuated by such motives, but he thought they were the smaller and less important portion, and that in a great and overwhelming proportion the charities of the country were the result of the gifts of liberal and Christian men determined to do good in their lifetime for their poorer fellow-creatures. he hoped the House would join in his request that the right hon. Gentleman would reconsider the subject, for such a tax must lead to serious distress and suffering. Which was to be the result of the imposition of this tax?

631
Were the participators in the charity to be deprived of a portion of its benefits, or were the generous men who felt how important was the continuance of the charities to provide from their own resources the necessary additional funds? As an illustration of the effect of the tax he might refer to the Patriotic Fund, of which, at the desire of its President, the illustrious and lamented Prince Consort, he had been from the beginning one of the auditors. That fund amounted to £1,500,000, and was devoted to the maintenance of the widows and the education of the orphans of the brave soldiers and sailors who fell in the Crimea. The revenue of the Patriotic Fund was £75,000 per annum, derived from various securities, and the expenditure came to the same amount. The whole of the prospective obligations of the Commissioners had been arranged so that they should be exactly met by the funds. If, however, the proposal of the Chancellor of the Exchequer were agreed to, it would entail a loss of £1,500 a year upon the annual interest of its property. But an important portion of its securities consisted of terminable annuities bought in the market or created for its convenience by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and upon the capital annually realized in these annuities a further tax of £800 would be levied. From the entire property of the Patriotic Fund no less a sum than £50,000 would be taken, prospectively, by the repeal of this exemption, supposing the income tax to endure for a certain number of years. How was such a disastrous result to be remedied? How wore the gentlemen, some of the highest in the country, who were appointed by that most excellent man the late Prince Consort to the management of the charity—how were they to frame their report? They must state to the Queen that the institution, in the formation of which she took so great an interest, and over which her Royal Consort presided with unwearied care and assiduity and unflinching solicitude for many years, had been mulcted by her Chancellor of the Exchequer to the extent of £50,000, and that they must consequently dismiss children from the schools, deprive widows of their pensions, or ask the Queen to allow subscriptions to be recommenced under her patronage for the purpose of restoring the amount so abstracted from the fund. He really must submit that charities were not fitting subjects for taxation, and that the operation of the proposed change, as illus-
632
trated in the case of the Patriotic Fund, could not be satisfactory to this House or to the country. He had now noticed most of the points in the financial statement of the Chancellor of the Exchequer; and if he were to draw a moral from this review, he should say, that with respect to the finances of the country, they had been too ready to yield their admiration and assent to measures remarkable chiefly for the startling novelty of their construction and for the intricacy of their operation, as to the practical working of which it would he difficult for the most experienced to draw anything like a certain conclusion. Now, his impression was, that the science of financial and fiscal legislation was the science which, of all others, needed a simple treatment. Truthfulness of expression and simplicity of action should be the essential requisites of the system of a Finance Minister. However able, ingenious, and eloquent a Chancellor of the Exchequer might be in the formation of a budget full of intricacy, and contrived upon a complicated system, he was sure he would find that in carrying out his schemes he had to deal with persons who, on this subject, were more knowing than himself, and that in the end, no matter what his ability might be, he would be the loser. In the concession of £60 from the taxation of the minor incomes the right hon. Gentleman had admitted an adjustment satisfactory to those who earned such incomes, and forming an admirable substratum for the further adjustment of the higher industrial incomes. He trusted, that until the period of that further adjustment arrived, the House would refrain from depriving the present unequal law of any of its few palliatives, and would not countenance the imposition of a tax upon the charities of the country.
MR. MARSHsaid, he thought that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was extremely fortunate in being able to announce a considerable surplus, notwithstanding the distress existing in the country, the consecutive occurrence of three bad harvests, and the stop put to the profitable trade with the Southern States of America. As to the complaints which bad been made of the proposals in the Budget, nothing was so easy as to find fault with taxation. They could not please everybody with taxes; and the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer laboured under very great difficulty. On the one side were those who wished to spend money, and on the other those who never

633
wished to pay it. For his own part, he thought hon. Members would do far better if on nights of Committee of Supply they would allow the House to go at once into Supply, instead of bringing forward a number of small Motions, all tending to extravagance. With respect to taxation, however, what the Chancellor of the Exchequer had to consider was, how to get the most money into the Treasury with the least burden to the people. That would seem the simplest operation in the world; but the fact was that people liked to be taxed insidiously, and would rather pay eighteen pence without knowing it than one shilling knowing it. The change made in regard to the tobacco duties he conceived to be a most decided benefit; for the old duty of 9s. on manufactured tobacco operated altogether as a prohibitory duty in respect to the working classes. With regard to the remission in the tea duties, he somewhat lamented that his right hon. Friend should have sacrificed so large a sum as £1,600,000 a year without what he considered to be a corresponding benefit. The Journal of the Statistical Society showed that a Yorkshire labourer with five children would spend in tea about 17 s. 4½d. in the year, buying about 3½ lbs, In that case he would save from the reduced duty of 5d. a pound, just 1s. 5½d, a year, and yet for that small saving to the labouring man the Chancellor of the Exchequer proposed to sacrifice a revenue of £1,600,000. The same labourer consumed during the year 1,085 lbs. of flour; and if the 1s. duty per quarter on corn were abolished, he would save 2s. 9d. in the year, though by the latter remission the Chancellor of the Exchequer would only sacrifice £600,000. Thus, for the interests of the poor man, the abolition of the duty still remaining on corn, small as it was, would be more important than the reduction proposed in the tea duty. As to the income tax, they were, of course, all grateful for the 2d. in the pound which was to be taken off; but he wished that his right hon. Friend had tried to make an adjustment, establishing a distinction between cases in which income was produced with or without risk to the capital producing it. He was glad to see the abolition of the trumpery tax on bills of lading; for that impost, though email, was troublesome, and trouble meant time and money. With regard to charities, he was sorry to differ from his hon. Friend opposite (Mr. Hubbard). It was
634
right that they should be taxed. Some of them were founded many years ago by men, who, at that time, were in advance of their age; but in process of time these charities became behind the age, and in many instances they were not only useless but positively hurtful. He wished his right hon. Friend had let the carriers go free Much would not be got from them; and sometimes in the country they kept up a wholesome competition with those great monopolies—the railways—in the conveyance of poor persons. On the whole, they might well congratulate themselves upon their financial prosperity when comparing it with that of foreign countries. Thus, the hard-headed men who operated on the Stock Exchange, and upon the foreign Bourses, placed this country at 93, while France was at 69, many other nations were nowhere, and America was not even upon their books. Whence, then, that great prosperity? Australia and gold had been alluded to the other evening, but they would not account for it. Their exports to the Australian colonies were rather more than £10,000,000 a year, showing an increase of £7,000,000 within the last ten years; but that was but a small part of the increase of the export trade as a whole. In 1847 the exports were only £58,000,000; they were at the present time £140,000,000: so that the increase of the export trade to Australia was only about one-twelfth of the increased export trade taken together. But then gold was said to have something to do with their prosperity. He maintained that gold hitherto had had no appreciable effect on prices, and he believed that M. Chevallier, with whom he was well acquainted, had become a convert to that opinion, the real cause of all their prosperity was to be found in order and industry, both of which had been created and fostered by free trade.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, with regard to the remarks which had been made in the course of the debate upon some minor proposals, he believed it would be better to put off making any reply to them until the questions themselves came on for discussion in Committee. But with respect to what had been said on the subject of terminable annuities, he thought it would be in his power to show at the proper time that they involved the objectionable operation of the original sinking fund, which was open to this objection, that at one and the same time you

635
bought stock and sold it. With regard to the subject of charities, the proposal of the Government was not as yet before the House; and when it was, he would venture to say that it could be shown that the case of the Patriotic Fund was totally beside the general question; nor was there any parallel to it in the whole range of the charities of the country.
COLONEL SYKESsaid, he wished to call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to the case of captains and of the army and navy lieutenants, whose incomes rarely exceeded £200 or £300 a year, and who were brought within the full operation of the income tax. The case of those gentlemen was entitled to the most favourable consideration of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. He regretted that-the right hon. Gentleman proposed to tax the charities of the country.
LORD ROBERT CECILinquired whether the charitable clauses would be included in the one tax Bill?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, they all belong to the Income Tax Act.
Main Question put, and agreed to.
WAYS AND MEANS considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
(3.) That, towards raising the Supply granted to Her Majesty, in lieu of the Duties of Customs now charged on Tea, the following Duties of Customs shall, on and after the 25th day of April 1863, until the 1st day of August 1864, be charged thereon on importation into Great Britain and Ireland, viz.—

Tea

the lb.

1s.

0d.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he thought that probably it would not be thought necessary to discuss the Resolution further on that occasion, and therefore he should reserve any remarks to see whether he was right in his expectation.
SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid, he wished to know whether the attention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer had been called to the complaint of certain tea dealers, who alleged that the right hon. Gentleman had in some former speech distinctly laid down the principle that it would he convenient for the tea duties to run from July to July? They alleged that sufficient notice had not been given to them of the proposed change; that they had supposed from that statement of the right hon. Gentleman that there was no occasion to di-
636
minish their stocks, and that they were taken by surprise by his present rapid proceeding. He did not express any opinion on the subject himself, but he wished to know whether the right hon. Gentleman admitted there had been any breach of faith on his part in the matter?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that his attention had been called to the subject by a variety of letters which he had received from tea-dealers, who claimed the right to receive a drawback or to have some time allowed before the change came into operation. He could only say that the course he proposed to take was the usual one. Indeed, for many years there had been one uniform course, and he was not aware that they had ever postponed the reduction beyond the time when the Resolution was reported to the House. Certainly, for the last ten years there was nothing which formed a precedent for the claim now made. For himself, he entirely repudiated all intention of having given anything like the pledge supposed. In point of fact, when he made the speech referred to be was engaged in proposing a great number of reductions in Customs duties which he wished should take immediate effect. Formerly the duties used to be reserved from April to April, but the inconvenience of legislation to which that gave rise had led to the change. However cheerful a hope he might entertain that the benefit of the reduction in the tea duty would go to the consumer, it was absurd to suppose that in every country village and town the consumer would find the full reduction the day after the change took place. The dealer would get the best price he could, and the Government would be acting unjustly to the consumer if they yielded to any complaint such as this.
MR. GREGSONsaid, that the stocks of the dealers in tea were never so low as at that moment. In fact, the dealers had prepared themselves for the proposed change.
MR. DARBY GRIFFITHsaid, he was sorry to see, by the Resolution, that the 1s. duty would cease in August, 1864. He did not suppose that any Chancellor of the Exchequer would propose to go back to the high duty, but why limit the term? It would leave the door open so as to allow the Chancellor of the Exchequer to be tempted, if some emergency occurred, to re-impose the high duty.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, the 1s. duty was proposed as

637
a defined settlement, so to speak, of the question. The term of August, 1864, had been fixed as the period for considering whether that amount should be kept as an annual duty. The House might then consider the duty on tea in connection with that on sugar.
Resolution agreed to
(4.) That, towards raising the Supply granted to Her Majesty, the Duties and Drawbacks of Customs now charged and allowed on the articles undermentioned shall continue to be levied, charged, and allowed, on and after the 1st day of July 1863, until the 1st day of August 1864, on Importation into Great Britain and Ireland, or on Exportation thereof to Foreign parts, or on removal thereof to the Isle of Man for consumption therein, or on deposit thereof in any approved warehouse, upon such terms and subject to such regulations as the Commissioners of Customs may direct, for delivery therefrom as Ships' Stores only, or for the purpose of sweetening British Spirits in Bond, viz:—

Sugar, as denominated in the Tariff.

Molasses

Almonds, paste of.

Cherries, dried

Comfits, dry

Confectionery

Ginger, preserved.

Marmalade.

Plums, preserved in Sugar

Succades, including all Fruits and Vegetables preserved in Sugar, not otherwise enumerated.

MR. LINDSAYsaid, he wished to offer some observations on the mode of charging the sugar duties. It was exceedingly complicated and troublesome, and led to incessant alteration. Moreover, so long as a high differential duty was placed on the best description of sugar it was the interest of the sugar-grower to produce, not that description of sugar, but one of an inferior kind, on which a lower duty was paid. If these differential duties were levied at all, they ought to be levied in such a manner as to encourage the grower to produce the best quality of sugar. At that moment there was a conference sitting at Paris on this subject, endeavouring to arrange some more equitable mode of levying such duties. The duty received last year from the two higher classes of sugars was £291,000. But from that was to be deducted £184,000, the draw-back for exportation; so that out of the. £6,000,000 Customs duties received last year, only £107,000 was from the two higher classes of sugars. It was his conviction, that if there was a uniform duty on all sugars, the effect would be to enormously increase the supply, while the
638
sugar-producers in all parts of the world would endeavour to produce the best article. There would be a waste in refining of about 10 per cent, so that, supposing the duty was 15 s. per cwt., the loss under that head would amount to 1s. 6d. per cwt. The foreigner, who was allowed to refine in bond, would therefore have an advantage of 1s. 6d. per cwt. over the refiner of this country; but the refiner, say in Hamburg, would be subjected to freight and other charges, which would amount to a sum that would something like balance the loss of 1s. 6d. sustained by the Englishman. Again, the sugar came over in hogsheads, casks, and bags; every one of which (sometimes as many as 20,000 in a single ship) were examined with the standards kept in the Secretary's office. That practice occasioned great delay and expense to the revenue. He asked, then, why were these differential duties retained? Serious objections to equalization of the duty were no doubt made by Sir Thomas Fremantle and others before the Committee of last year—such as the frauds upon the revenue, the interruption to trade, and so forth. But it was not worth the while of the established firms to defraud the revenue; and as to the injury that would he occasioned to trade, he (Mr. Lindsay) did not see why the home refiner should not be able to refine at the same cost as the refiner abroad. And why should not sugar be refined in bond? There was no doubt that the consumption of sugar was enormously on the increase; and the loss on the equalization of the duties would he more than compensated for by the increased demand. If it was once for all known that protection was withdrawn, he had no doubt that the sugar-refiners in the country would find out the means of refining sugar in bond without risk to the revenue.
MR. CAVEsaid, he had hoped, that for that Session at least, they would have been spared a debate upon the sugar duties. As Chairman of the West India Committee, and therefore representing a very large number of those who were interested in the question, he should, of course, have been better pleased if the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer could have reduced the duties on sugar. It seemed hard, that after illuminating for the peace seven years ago, they should still be paying the war duty. It seemed to them that the very large stocks now in bond, the unreasonable amount of the tax

639
in proportion to the present value of the article, and the great variety of uses to which sugar might be applied, constituted a fair claim to consideration; but he felt that the Conference now being held on the Continent was too good an excuse for a Chancellor of the Exchequer naturally anxious to retain so productive a duty. And he was by no means jealous of his hon. Friends the Members for Lancaster and Brighton, though he thought they hardly deserved their success, after having on a previous occasion thrown over tea in favour of paper. But as his hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland (Mr. Lindsay) had thought proper to bring up the subject, and attack the Report of the Select Committee of last year, it might be deemed excusable in him, who took an active part in that inquiry and cordially concurred in that Report, to say a few words in reply, though he could not hope to do justice to so wide a subject, and one so little fit for debate. The House would remember that last Session his hon. Friend the Member for the City (Mr. Crawford), who represented the interests which were dissatisfied with the present classification of the sugar duties, moved for a Committee to inquire into the whole subject. On the part of the West Indians he offered no opposition. The Committee was granted; and as his hon. Friend had naturally the chief voice in its selection, he presumed it might be taken to have been not unfavourably constituted in regard to his case. He had also a Chairman who might be said to have been committed to his view of the question. The Committee sat more than two months, asked more than 6,000 questions, and, after an inquiry which, he was sure his hon. Friend would be the first to acknowledge, was carried on with the greatest fairness and patience by Chairman and Committee, they reported, by a large majority at least, in favour of an extension of the classification. The question, however, had not been suffered to rest there. One of the witnesses, who happened, he understood, to have peculiar facilities for circulating his opinions through the press and in other ways, occupied the whole winter with great perseverance in attacking the Report; and, by putting forward the evidence on his own side and withholding that on the other, he probably made some impression. Hence the crop of Petitions which had been plentifully garnered into the bags at the table, the value of which had been somewhat impaired by the significant asterisk attached
640
to them by the Committee of Petitions' showing, that though from remote corners of the kingdom, they were all suspiciously alike. That agitation naturally provoked retort, and the usual amount of pamphlets on both sides followed, some showing great ability, arguments drawn from which he had recognised in his hon. Friend's speech, for he had not the same practical acquaintance with sugar which he undoubtedly had with shipping questions. What was it his hon. Friend complained of? He said that the present mode of levying duties was contrary to the principles of free trade, that it gave a premium to bad sugar, and therefore obliged the consumer to put up with a worse article than he would otherwise have; that it protected one producer agaist another, and so on. A great deal of that error, for such he believed it to be, arose from confusion of terms. To those who objected to ad valorem duties, it seemed at first sight wrong to tax good sugar higher than bad sugar. But good and bad sugar were really misnomers. The writer of one pamphlet called it sugar "more or less highly manufactured;" that was a better description, but still it did not convey the actual fact, which was that a great deal which was commonly called sugar was not sugar at all, that real sugar was nearly of one quality and value, and was, or was intended to be, taxed alike. The only sugar properly so called was pure white sugar. Everything else was sugar and something besides; and though it might be—which he did not admit—contrary to free trade to tax two sorts of sugar differently, it could not be so to tax sugar differently from sugar in combination with something which was not sugar. That principle was adopted without any such objections in the case of the wine and spirit duties, in which a certain strength of alcohol was the standard, and the article was less and less taxed as it was more and more mixed. So again cocoa in husk was more lightly taxed than cocoa without the husk; and the stalks, water, and sand in tobacco were the other day, in a Bill to which he understood the hon. Gentleman the Member for the City to assent, deemed entitled to a remission of the duty charged on the dry leaf. Tea and coffee differed in quality; they were not combined with foreign substances. Difference of duty in such case would be ad valorem, which that on sugar was not; convertibility or inconvertibility would be the test. His hon. Friend complained of protection. There was protection, but it

641
was to the higher qualities of sugar. The Committee found that the lower qualities paid a heavier duty in proportion to the real sugar contained in them than the higher, and that, in consequence, a great deal of what is called "concrete" and "melado," the simplest preparations of the cane, was excluded from the markets of this country by the duty. They therefore recommended that the duly should be more fairly assessed, in order to bring in every kind of produce. The true principle of a duty, as he imagined, was to place all producers in the same relation to each other as if there was no duty at all. Surely that would not be done by taxing the jaggery of India, which contained about 45 per cent of sugar, with the best produce of the slave labour of Cuba, which contained, perhaps, 90 per cent. The native agriculturist (the ryot) of India and the free negro of Jamaica, who cleared a few acres of jungle or forest and planted his sugar-canes, was it not mockery to talk to him about animal charcoal and vacuum pans? If there was no duty on sugar, he would increase our supply to a great extent with the rude produce which his hon. Friend would prohibit altogether. The average price of sugar paying higher duties amply compensated for the difference of duty. Those who tried to gain every advantage by going as near the line as possible sometimes made a mistake and suffered heavily. The weather, the voyage, and other causes might throw them out in their calculations. Again, the complaints of those who said that refining abroad—in India, for instance — did not pay, might be correct; but the; reason was not in the duty, but in their inability to compete with the skilled labour, machinery, fuel, &c., of the English refiner. Besides, the voyage spoiled their sugar, and made it suffer in appearance in comparison with refiners'produce—which went immediately into consumption. The beautiful appearance of different qualities of sugar sent out by the refiner, who could imitate any colour or quality preferred, had changed people's taste, and thrown a large quantity of what was formerly grocery sugar out of direct consumption, and given rise to the erroneous impression that there was less good grocery sugar than formerly, the fact being that what used to be sold to grocers was now sold to refiners. There was no argument in favour of two duties—that is, on refined and unrefined sugar—that was not equally strong in favour of one only, the effect of which would be that none
642
but refined sugar would be imported, the trade of the English refiner would be destroyed, the price of sugar increased, the enormous consumption of 37 lb. a head fall off, and the revenue suffer. If the classification were not retained, the only fair alternatives would be no duty at all, or refining in bond. He had that evening presented a petition from importers and workers of 54,000 tons of sugar in favour of classification. He believed it to be the fairest method; it worked well, and the complaints of difficulty and inconvenience were very inconsiderable. The fact that the authors of the system were Sir Robert Peel, Mr. Wilson, and the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, and the date of its origin in 1845, precluded the possibility of any protection being intended, and he could not do better than close with the words of the present Chancellor of the Exchequer, spoken by him in 1854, when repelling a similar attack to the present—
"There were difficulties to be encountered, but they were as nothing compared with the enormous inequality and injustice which would be done by refusing to admit classification."
MR. CRAWFORDsaid, although he had been a Member of the Committee of last Session, he must confess he was one of those who felt dissatisfied with the present system of classifying sugars. He did not, however, think that that was a favourable opportunity for discussing the question. He should very much prefer to see that treated, not as a Budget question, but as a matter by itself. Moreover, it was only fair, that pending the inquiries of the Commission in Paris, the present sugar duties should remain unaltered. With respect to the constitution of the Committee, to which reference had been made, he was bound to state that he had taken the utmost pains to secure a representation of all the different interests; and as that in which he felt interested was only one of these, it was evident that it must have been in a minority on the Committee.
MR. CAVEobserved, that he had not intended to impute any unfair practice to the hon. Member.
MR. CRAWFORDsaid, that he was not less impressed than ever he had been with the truth of the principle for which he contended, or less hopeful with regard to its ultimate success. At one time he had proposed, us a sort of compromise, a scheme of two duties; but, like all compromises, it bad failed. The only true principle on which the sugar duties could

643
be adjusted was a single duty, and to that they would ultimately come.
MR. CRUM-EWINGsaid, he believed that a uniform rate of duty, accompanied by a power of refining in bond, would be a great benefit to the consumer.
MR. GREGSONsaid, he also advocated the adoption of a uniform rate of duty, which would hare the effect of securing supplies of the best instead of the worst kinds of sugar.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he was glad to find that the general opinion of the Committee was that the Government had acted wisely in not entering into the discussion on the various rates of sugar duties at a time when they could not submit any actual proposal to Parliament. With regard to refining in bond, the opinion of the Committee last year, and of all sections of the witnesses, including revenue officers and persons engaged in the trade from all parts, was against refining in bond; consequently of that solution they were deprived. Of course, it was the duty of a Government to keep itself open to conviction until the time came when they could make a proposal to Parliament; but after due reflection and investigation he was not prepared to retract the opinion expressed in the quotation from a speech of his which had been read by the hon. Member opposite. As to a sole and single duty, it must include refined sugar upwards, or the principle would be interfered with. But it must also include molasses downwards, and that article would be practically prohibited at a duty equal to that on refined sugar. It had been said that the present scale of duties gave a premium on the admission of the inferior article. If that assertion were true, it was conclusive against the present system, but the hon. Member opposite (Mr. Cave) had declared that the quantity of saccharine matter contained in sugar of a given weight was more highly taxed when the quality of the sugar was low than when it was high. If that statement was correct, then it was not true that a premium was given upon the admission of inferior sugar, but rather the contrary. However that might be, the question was one that would, no doubt, be more fully and satisfactorily discussed upon another occasion.
SIR MINTO FARQUHARremarked, that what both sugar-growers and sugar-consumers desired, was that the war duties imposed upon the article should be removed.
MR. CARDWELLsaid, that having gone into the Committee with most dispassionate views, he was of opinion that the conclusion arrived at was the correct one. It was impossible to fix a single duty, because that would act as a prohibition upon low sugars, and as protection for others; and, it not being possible to adopt a graduated scale, it only remained to continue the present system of duties.
Resolution agreed to.
(5.) That, towards raising the Supply granted to Her Majesty, there shall be charged, collected, and paid for one year, commencing on the 6th day of April 1863, for and in respect of all Property, Profits, and Gains mentioned or described as chargeable in the Act passed in the 16th and 17th years of Her Majesty's reign, chapter 34, for granting to Her Majesty Duties on Profits arising from Property, Professions, Trades, and Offices, the following Rates and Duties (that is to say):
For every twenty shillings of the annual value or amount of all such Property, Profits, and Gains (except those chargeable under Schedule (B) of the said Act), the Rate or Duty of 7d.
And
For and in respect of the occupation of Lands, Tenements, Hereditaments, and Heritages chargeable under Schedule (B) of the said Act, for every twenty shillings of the annual value thereof,
In England, the Rate or Duty of 3½d., and
In Scotland and Ireland respectively, the Rate or Duty of 2½d.
Subject to the provisions contained in the 28th section of the said Act for the exemption of Persons whose whole Income from every source shall be less than £100 a year.
MR. HUNTsaid, he hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would give them some information in respect to the deduction of £60 he proposed to allow to all incomes under £200. The right hon. Gentleman had never stated why he fixed upon the precise sum. He (Mr. Hunt) took it that the right hon. Gentleman regarded that sum as representing the amount requisite to purchase the bare necessaries of life for a family. He was, however, at a loss to know why the right hon. Gentleman stopped at £200 a year for that reduction. He thought that he ought to go somewhat higher in allowing the reduction. He found that the incomes under £200 a year, under Schedules D and E, amounted to 268,144, and that those receiving higher incomes amounted to 111,207, showing at once the reason why the Chancellor of the Exchequer should have the great majority of complaints from the class of smaller incomes. The allowance at 7d. upon £60 was 35 s., which, upon incomes under £200

645
would entail a loss to the revenue of £469,252, and upon incomes above £200 the loss would be £194,613. He had no data to show him what the loss would be to the revenue, if this deduction were to be applied to incomes of £250 or £300. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would be able to inform the Committee.
MR. PULLERsaid, he wished to know whether the occupier of a, farm exceeding £200 a year rental, supposing he had no other source of income, would be allowed to deduct from his real income £60 a year?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, it was his intention to place the farmer precisely in the same position as any other person with respect to deductions, the peculiar assessment applying to them being only a convenient mode of ascertaining the extent of their incomes. In answer to the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Hunt), he might state that all the information in his power would be laid before the House at a future stage of the proposal under discussion. In reference to the proposal which the hon. Gentleman himself seem disposed to make, he must observe that it was one which he should feel bound to resist. It was most unadvisable to encourage all persons of considerable income, who were a large number altogether, to apply at Somerset House, to have each some £2 returned to them. It would cost them some £200,000 or £300,000 a year.
MR. HENLEYsaid, he hoped the right hon. Gentleman would reconsider that part of his scheme in which he proposed to do away with the exemptions on charities with reference to the case of many persons who received payments under that head. In several grammar schools, for instance, the trustees of a charity paid the salary of a master to the extent of £100 or £150 a year. Now, suppose that master were to take boarders, and were thus to increase his income to an amount above £200 a year, he did not see how, under the operation of the scheme of the right hon. Gentleman, he could escape paying income tax twice over. There would be a deduction, in the first place, on the payment of the money from the land on which it was raised, while the master would again he taxed on his increased income. That was a point which, be thought, was worthy the consideration of the Government. He supposed he might add that a charity whose income was under £100 a year would be
646
exempt from income tax altogether; and that if the income exceeded £100, but was under £200, it would be allowed the deduction of £60. If it were otherwise, a charity would be placed on a worse footing than an individual person.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that he did not look upon charities as persons. He did not see that a charity had any analogy whatever to a person, and therefore would not be treated as such. So far as the smaller charities, which imposed a great deal of trouble and expense on the State, were concerned, he was of opinion that it was upon them it was most fair that the tax should fall. It was not the intention of the Government, he might add, that the income tax should, under any circumstances, be paid twice over.
MR. HENLEYsaid, that it appeared, according to the Chancellor of the Exchequer's benevolent views, that the smaller the charities the more strongly did the principle of taxation apply to them, because they occasioned so much trouble. When they had the Bill before them, he (Mr. Henley) would submit this question to the consideration of the right hon. Gentleman and the House — namely, how far it was just as the Charity Commissioners were forcing all charities to regulate their affairs, that the trustees should be brought under the obligation to pay upon the distribution of those small charities for the current year without any right to deductions. He thought that such an obligation was a great hardship. Those charities did not, like the Chancellor of the Exchequer, possess large balances in hand, and had frequently great difficulty in making both ends meet; and if the right hon. Gentleman were to put his claw into the dish, as he proposed, he would be subjecting them to a great burden.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, the charities in question were not by any means a special object of taxation, nor had he intimated that he intended they should be so. All he had contended for was that the argument in favour of the proposal which he made was even stronger in their case than in that of other charities, he was, he might add, disposed to put his claws into their till, not their dish.
MR. ALDERMAN SALOMONSsaid, he would put the case of the annuitants of a charity receiving £8 or £9 a year, and would ask by what means their receipts were to be dealt with with respect to deductions?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that arrangements, as now frequently happened in similar instances, would be made with the charity itself.
MR. CRAWFORDsaid, he wished to ask whether small parochial charities left for the benefit of the poor would be subject to income tax?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that where it could be held that the charity went in aid of the ratepayers it was already liable to the tax, and the smallness of the charity would not, under the proposal he made, exempt it from the tax.
SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid, the proposals of the right hon. Gentleman could he more conveniently discussed when the Bill in which they were embodied came before the House. He must not, however, in assenting to the Resolution, be held as committing himself to the provisions of the Bill.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he would promise that ample opportunity for the discussion of those provisions at the proper stage should be afforded.
MR. LYGONobserved, that the Committee were asked to assent to a Resolution which contained no reference to the proposed exemptions. He wished to know in what form the questions of those exemptions would he raised. He wished to know what was the amount which would be derived from the non-exemption of these charities. He believed he was right in saying that nine-tenths of the charities belonged to the Church of England, and that was a signal proof of the benefit conferred on the Church of England by the right hon. Gentleman.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, the hon. Gentleman would excuse him if he made no reply to the last observation. As to the amount to be derived from the abolition of the exemption, he estimated it at about £100,000 a year. There would be ample opportunities of discussing the question on the clauses of the Bill.
MR. AYRTONsaid, he understood that these charities were nothing more than trusts, for the benefit of persons among whom the funds were distributed. In ordinary cases the trustees paid the income tax, and the cestui que trusts, if their incomes were less than £100, had the amount returned to them. As he understood, that would still be done. In the
648
case of railway companies the directors deducted the income tax from the dividends, and any shareholder whose total income was less than £100, obtained a return of the amount so deducted. Charities, like railway companies, were corporations, and their aggregate revenue did not affect individual exemptions. If that were so, the proposition to tax charities came to nothing, and would add nothing to the revenue.
MR. SELWYNsaid, that charities might he conveniently divided into three classes. One class had been referred to, and an illustration of that class was to be found in the Sons of the Clergy, where a large fund was distributed among a great many recipients, of £10 or £15 a year. He could scarcely imagine that it was proposed to tax them. The second class included almshouses, where part was given in goods and part in money. By the present law the income tax was first paid, and then returned, upon showing that no single person received £100 a year. The third class included hospitals, where all the benefit was in goods, and no one received anything like £100 a year. He wished to know whether the Chancellor of the Exchequer intended to include in the, withdrawal of exemption either or all of these classes?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he thought he had made his meaning clear, and he was reluctant to restate what he had before said on the subject. The tax would be levied in the gross, but those recipients whose incomes did not amount to £100 would be entitled to a return of the money, because otherwise they would be more harshly dealt with than other persons in a similar position. In no case would a double tax be imposed. For further explanations he hoped hon. Members would wait until the clauses had been printed.
MR. HENLEYsaid, he understood that trustees who received £100 a year were to pay the tax, but that the money was to be returned to the recipients. He wanted to know how ten poor people, who got £10 a year each, and who, probably, could neither read nor write, were to get the amount of the tax back again. It seemed to him that under the change proposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer the labours of Somerset House would be largely increased.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, the right hon. Gentleman

649
had misunderstood him. In such a case as the one supposed the business of returning the money would be settled with the charity, and not with the individual recipients.
MR. T. BARINGsaid, he assumed that the trustees would be taxed on the gross incomes of their charities, and that no second demand would be made upon the recipients. But there must be a deduction from the payments made to the recipients, because the trustees would have less at I their disposal; and although the recipients; would not be taxed twice, yet they would be taxed once, though their incomes might not amount to £100. The tax might he levied upon the charity as a whole, but it would really fall upon the individual recipients.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, the hon. Member was in error. Me had already stated that no double tax would be imposed in any case, and he had now to add, that where a single tax had been levied upon a charity, the recipients whose incomes did not amount to £100, would be entitled to have the money returned. In those cases the return would be made, not to each individual recipient, but in the gross. It was also intended to provide that charities should not be entitled to deduct the amount of the tax from the doles or stipends payable to their objects when they had a residue of other funds from which the tax could be paid.
Resolution agreed to.
SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid, he wished to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he intended to go on with the remaining Resolutions?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERreplied in the affirmative. There was one of them especially on which he wished to give some explanations.
MR. AYRTONsaid, it was past midnight, and he would appeal to the Committee whether it would be consistent with propriety at so late an hour to enter upon the discussion of Resolutions which were opposed.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he did not propose to go on with Resolutions to which opposition was to be offered, but he thought it would be for the convenience of hon. Members that he should be allowed at once to explain certain auxiliary provisions which did not appear on the paper.
SIR JAMES FERGUSSONsaid, he thought no further progress should be made that night. Owing to a recent change in the mode of dealing with financial business, the effect of passing the Resolutions sub silentio would be to deprive the House of one important stage for discussion. It was most important to the large railway companies that due time should be given to point out to the right hon. Gentleman how, as they thought, their interests would be injuriously affected, and how the travelling public would suffer by the change proposed.
MR. THOMPSONsaid, that if he offered no opposition to the Resolution affecting railways that night, he wished to be understood as not, conceding the principle of the right hon. Gentleman's proposal.
SIR PATRICK O'BRIENsaid, he wished to reserve his right to object hereafter to the principle of the resolution relating to charitable legacies in Ireland.
THE CHAIRMANwould remind the Committee that there was no question before it.
MR. LYGONsaid, he should protest against the doctrine of passing such important Resolutions pro formâ, without any adequate advantage to the public, especially, too, at a time when the other business which the Government had to submit to the House was not of a character to demand any lengthened discussion, or a protracted Session. He would suggest that the right hon. Gentleman should postpone Resolutions 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10. The House ought not to abandon its privileges, and he would feel it his duty to move that the Chairman report Progress.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Chairman do report these Resolutions to the House."
SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTEsaid, he would put it to the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether it was possible to go on with the Resolutions that night. They could not be passed pro formâ; and as they referred to questions which were new, they required a good deal of discussion.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, it was a very common thing to assent to Resolutions of the kind, the House reserving its judgment on the matter until it had before it the Bill, which in that case it was desirable to introduce as soon as possible. He did not, however, propose to proceed that night with any

651
Resolution to which real objection was taken.
SIR WILLIAM JOLLIFFEsaid, he did not desire to delay the passing of the Resolutions, but it was absolutely necessary that the consideration of some of them should be adjourned till a future day.
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, he would not resist the reporting of progress.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
The following Resolutions were then agreed to: —
(6.) That, towards making good the Supply granted to Her Majesty, the sum of £20,000,000 be granted, out of the Consolidated Fund of the the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.
(7.) That, towards making good the Supply granted to Her Majesty, the Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury be authorized to raise any sum of money not exceeding One Million Sterling, by an issue of Exchequer Bonds.
(8.) That the principal of all Exchequer Bonds which may be so issued, shall be paid off at par, at any period not exceeding six years from the date of such Bonds.
(9.) That the Interest of such Exchequer Bonds shall be payable half-yearly, and shall be charged upon and issued out of the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom, or the growing Produce thereof.
House resumed.
Resolutions to be reported To-morrow; Committee to sit again To-morrow.

VACCINATION (IRELAND) BILL. [BILL 70.]

  SECOND READING. ADJOURNED DEBATE.
  Order read, for resuming Adjourned Debate on Question [23rd March], "That the Bill be now read a second time."
  Question again proposed.
  Debate resumed.
  LORD NAASsaid, that since the last discussion on the subject he had made it his business to inquire into the facts, and he found that the number of cases in Ireland had not increased. He thought the Bill would have the effect of preventing the increase of Vaccination in Ireland; and that it would lead to the people having recourse to the old and pernicious system of inoculation. The Bill, therefore, would not carry out the object it was intended to accomplish. There were also cases in which it would be dangerous to vaccinate children within a certain fixed time, and in such instances it would be most unfair to subject the parents to a penalty for not having their children vaccinated. The measure
  652
  would also interfere with the operation of the Births Registration Bill which had just been passed, as persons would avoid registering the births of their children, because by so doing they would bring themselves under the operation of this Bill.
  MR. VANCEcomplained of the increased expense the Bill would impose on the Poor Law funds.
  MR. DAWSONsaid, he had just returned from Ireland, and he had found there that the feeling of the people and of the boards of guardians were in favour of the Bill.
  SIR PATRICK O'BRIENsaid, he should support the Bill. The views of hon. Members might be carried out by alterations in Committee.
  MR. WHITESIDEreferred to a Report of the Royal Jennerian and London Vaccine Institution, condemning a system of compulsory vaccination, and moved that the Bill be read a second time that day six months.
  Amendment proposed, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day six months."
  Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."
  SIR ROBERT PEELsaid, the object of the Bill was to extend to Ireland that system of compulsory vaccination which prevailed in almost every country in Europe except Scotland. He had received communications from numerous boards of guardians in Ireland in favour of the Bill, and among others from the nine most populous unions. The cost of the men sure—1–20th part of a farthing on the total valuation of Ireland, would be an infinitesimal price to pay for what would be a great boon to the country. At present, the births amounted to about 200,000 a year, while, on the other hand, the number of vaccinations, which was 107,000 in 1860, had fallen to 87,000 in 1862. He therefore hoped the House would allow him to pass the second reading. When in Committee he would be able to show that its provisions were calculated to effect much good.
  MR. WHITESIDEsaid, he would withdraw his Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Main Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read 2°, and committed for Tuesday next.

JUDGMENTS LAW AMENDMENT (IRELAND) BILL [MR. WHITESIDE]— [BILL 71.]

  SECOND READING.
  Order for Second Reading read.
  MR. BUTTprotested against a Bill of this important character being proceeded with at that late hour.
  Second Reading deferred till Monday next.

  POISONED GRAIN PROHIBITION BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. PAULL, Bill to prohibit the sale and use of Poisoned Grain in certain cases, ordered to be brought in by Mr. PAULL, Mr. SCLATER-BOOTH, and Mr. WALTER.
  Bill presented, and read 1°. [Bill 90.]
  House adjourned at half after One o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Vice-Admiralty Courts (No. 79).
Second Reading—Office of Secretary at-War Abolition (No. 71); Dockyards Protection Act Amendment (No. 66).
Committee—Local Government Act (1858) Amendment (No. 69); Alkali Works Regulation (No. 55).
Report—Alkali Works Regulation (No. 77).

ALKALI WORKS REGULATON BILL.

  (NO. 55.) COMMITTEE.
  House in Committee (according to Order).
  Clause 1 (Short Title) agreed to.
  Clause 2 (Commencement of Act)—Act not to come into operation until the 1st January 1864.
  THE EARL OF DERBYsaid, he did not see why the Act should not come into operation before.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYsaid, the apparatus that would be required would take some time to erect; but he had no objection to alter the clause so as to enact that the Act should come into operation on the 1st January 1864.
  Clause, amended, and agreed to.
  Clause 3 (Interpretation Clause) agreed to.
  Clause 4 (Conduct of Alkali Works).
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYproposed to substitute for the present clause (which imposed a penalty not exceeding £50 in respect of the first offence, and for the second offence a penalty not exceeding £20, or not less than £2 for every day during which the alkali work is carried on in contravention of this section) a new
  550
  clause which would impose a penalty not exceeding £50, and in respect of a continuing offence, after notice, a penalty not exceeding £30 nor less than £5 for every day.
  THE EARL OF DERBYproposed that in the case of a second or any subsequent offence the penalty should be increased to not less than £50 and not more than £100. He would leave the Board of Trade to define what a "continuing offence" should be held to be.
  LORD CRANWORTHsaid, that until a court of law had decided that the owner of the work had committed a violation of the law, it would be rather hard to double the penalty.
  LORD CHELMSFORDsaid, that every alkali work was to be carried on to the satisfaction of the Inspector. Not to do so was in itself an offence under the Act, and he did not therefore see the hardship of increasing the penalty.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYsaid, he would consider the suggestion proposed by the noble Earl.
  Amendment agreed to.
  Clause struck out, and new Clause inserted.
  Clause 5 (Registration of Alkali Works) agreed to.
  Clause 6 (Appointment of Inspectors).
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYproposed to add a proviso enabling the Board of Trade, on the application of an Inspector, to appoint and remove sub-Inspectors.
  Motion agreed to.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Clauses 7 to 11 agreed to.
  Clause 12 (Recovery of General Penalties).
  THE EARL OF DERBYdesired to call the attention of the House to a feature in the Bill which, unless it was altered, would render it inoperative. The difficulty which had always arisen in cases of nuisance, and which rendered the Bills to remedy them inoperative, was the power which was given to the party charged with occasioning the nuisance to appeal to the superior courts; for it was frequently well worth while for a wealthy manufacturer convicted of occasioning a nuisance to appeal to the superior courts, knowing full well that the informer was not likely to incur the expense of such a proceeding. The Committee on this subject recommended strongly that there should he no such anneal from the Court of

  551
  Quarter Sessions, and it appeared to him that the questions to be determined upon the evidence of the Inspector were so simple that he could not see any necessity for giving an appeal except when some point of law should arise. He therefore proposed to omit that part of the clause giving the appeal, and to insert the words—
  "And no appeal may be had from such orders to any of Her Majesty's Superior Courts, except in cases in which the Court shall certify that some question of law is involved which renders expedient such appeal."
  He felt so strongly, as did the Committee on the subject, that he should feel it his duty, if necessary, to divide the House upon the subject.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYsaid, their Lordships must remember, that while the expenses of an appeal were very moderate, the consequences to the manufacturer of a conviction would be very serious, as numerous actions for damages would, of course, follow, and be sustained, as a matter of course, by the fact of the previous conviction. An additional reason in favour of allowing an appeal was that the tribunal of primary jurisdiction decided without a jury.
  LORD CRANWORTHsaid, that the Amendment was quite unnecessary, because the provision contained in the Bill was that the appeal should be had in the same way in which appeals could be had under the existing law, and such appeals were now allowed only where there was a question of law, and not upon a matter of fact. There was, in fact, no appeal in the proper sense of the word; but the proceedings being removed by certiorari, the superior court would take notice of any errors which appeared on the face of them.
  LORD CHELMSFORDsaid, his noble and learned Friend was quite right; but he would observe that this clause distinctly gave an appeal, which must mean something more than that which now existed by means of certiorari. He suggested that the clause be struck out altogether, and the law left as it now stood.
  After a few observations from LORD WENSLEYDALE, the words giving the appeal were struck out.
  Clause, as amended, agreed to.
  Remaining Clauses agreed to.
  The Report of the Amendments to be received on Monday next; and Bill to be printed as amended. (No. 77.)

OFFICE OF SECRETARY AT WAR ABOLITION BILL—(No. 71.)

  SECOND READING.
  EARL DE GREY AND RIPON, in moving that the Bill be now read the second time, said, that the object of the measure was to bring the law into conformity with the existing practice, according to which the offices of Secretary at War and Secretary of State for War were now held by the same person, and to provide for the discharge of the duties of the former office by the Secretary of State. There would be a convenience in making this alteration of the law, because the commission of the Secretary at War, which had to be held by the Secretary of State for War, ran as to an inferior officer, and directed him to obey the orders of the Commander-in-Chief in certain matters, an obedience which it was not the duty of a Secretary of State to render.
  Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.
  THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGHsaid, that as this Bill made no practical alteration in the powers now exercised by the Secretary of State, it would be better to let matters remain as they were, and to leave to the Crown the power which it now possessed of separating these two offices. He did not think that an experience of ten years was sufficient to justify Parliament in giving its sanction to their union. Indeed, inconvenience might arise from such a sanction, because it might become desirable to separate the offices at a time when Parliament was not sitting. He had always objected to the union of these two offices, which appeared to him to be incompatible with each other. The duty of the Secretary at War was to check the issue of money, and see that the Votes of Parliament were duly applied, and that no larger sums were issued than were actually voted; while that of the Secretary of State was to direct the expenditure and the issue of money. These two functions were, in his opinion quite incompatible, and ought not to be discharged by the same individual. In 1836 the Duke of Wellington thought that the business of the Secretary at War was as much as could be done in one office. Since that time the duty had materially increased; and if they amalgamated the two offices, he thought it might be that the Secretary of State alone would not be equal to the

  553
  proper performance of all the duties, Nothing could he more prejudicial to the public service than to heap upon one individual a vast amount of business, to the whole of which he could not possibly attend. So many duties were now cast upon the Secretary of State for War that he could not be really responsible for what was done in his office. He hoped the noble Earl opposite, whose acceptance of the office of Secretary of State had been received with great satisfaction, would apply himself to the re-consideration of that concentration of power in the War Department, which, in a hurried manner, in the midst of the Crimean war, Parliament had imagined itself forced to adopt. It would, indeed, be contrary to ordinary experience if a great change, carried out in great haste, should turn out the perfection of human wisdom. In the present instance, he believed the case to be directly the reverse, and he trusted, therefore, the noble Earl would illustrate his tenure of office by improving, as far as he could, the general scheme for the administration of the army.
  EARL RUSSELLsaid, that the Bill before their Lordships would increase the power of the Secretary for War in a very slight degree. He thought that considerable advantage had resulted from the alterations that had been made, and what was proposed in this Bill would be so far an improvement.
  THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGHsaid, that there were eight or ten great Departments under the responsibility of the Secretary of Stale for War, and he thought that it was quite impossible for any one functionary to discharge satisfactorily the duties appertaining to all of them.
  EARL GREYsaid, that if voting for this Bill was to be understood as an approval of the existing organization of the War Department, he should object to give such vote, for he believed that organization to be vicious in principle and inconvenient in practice, and that the military affairs of the country would never be satisfactorily administered until the system was improved. That, however, was a question which was not, in any way, affected by the Bill under discussion. The office of Secretary at War, however, had been, it appeared, virtually abolished, and therefore it was not desirable to keep it up in name.
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.

SEIZURE OF BRITISH VESSELS BY FEDERAL CRUISERS.

  QUESTION.
  THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDEsaid, that before their Lordships adjourned, he wished to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs two or three Questions, of which he had given him notice, upon a matter of the greatest importance—namely, the proceedings of naval officers of the Northern States of America with respect to British ships in the West Indian and Mexican waters, which was apparently sanctioned by their Government. He was well aware of the gravity of this subject; but he thought the circumstances which had taken place were so gross, and were so notorious, and of a character so deeply affecting some of the best interests, as well us the honour of this country, that he did not think any further time should be allowed to elapse before it was made known to the world that Parliament could not hear of these transactions without strong feelings of disapprobation. He did not know what answer the noble Earl would be prepared to give him; but he was sure that if he did not give good reasons for forbearance, or such an assurance as would tend to allay the feeling which he knew their Lordships and every other Englishman had, some action must without delay be taken in Parliament. The first case to which he wished to advert was the ease of the ship Dolphin. The accounts of the capture of that vessel, he presumed, were correct; and he must say, that a greater outrage on property, or a greater insult to the British flag, had seldom or never been offered. The Dolphin was a Liverpool ship, trading to a port in the British Colonies. Her papers were perfectly correct. She was a legitimate trader from Liverpool to Nassau, with orders to touch at Madeira and St. Thomas. As she was coming out of St. Thomas, she was visited and seized by an American cruiser, and carried away as prize, her crew being detained upon the ship of war which seized her. If the accounts received were correct, there was something very striking in the details of the way in which the commander of the ship of war behaved. While some of the crew were sent to Key West, or some other port, with the vessel, to be dealt with by a prize court, the Englishmen were detained on board the American ship of war, and she did not stir to put them on shore either at an English

  555
  port, of which there were several in the vicinity, or at Porto Rico; but they were detained on board until Her Majesty's ship the Nile had left the port of St. Thomas's, and they were then taken to and put on shore there on Danish ground. Supposing there was any pretext—which there was not—for seizing the Dolphin, it was quite contrary to the proper course to set the crew on shore on a foreign soil; and it was perfectly evident—at least, it was a fair inference to draw—that when they waited for the departure of the English ship of war, the captain of the American ship well knew that the outrage he had committed was of such a character that it would probably not have passed unavenged by the ship on the spot, had her captain been aware of it. He should like to know whether any official account had been received at the Foreign Office of this transaction; and, if so, what had the Government done in the matter? They could not view this as a mere case of reckless imprudence of a foolish officer, for it was impossible to look at it as an isolated case. Their Lordships must remember that the case of the Peterhoff, which occurred about a month ago, was very similar to this. In many instances, as in the case of the Adela, there was no foundation whatever upon which any charge could rest; and their Lordships must not forget that these transactions took place immediately under the eye and by the command of Commodore Wilkes, who had brought his Government to shame and humiliation in the affair of the Trent, when he committed an outrage for which the Federal Government had to make an apology and give reparation. These were things that the common sense of the country could not overlook; and therefore he thought it necessary that the Government, Parliament, and the country should bestir themselves not to allow the commerce of the country to be attacked in such a manner. The effect of treating these cases with too much forbearance hitherto was that other agents of the United States behaved in a manner that was wholly unprecedented, unlawful, and unjustifiable. A deputation that waited upon the noble Earl the Foreign Secretary recently, according to the newspapers, laid before him an example of such audacity as had seldom taken place in any country, certainly never before in London. Mr. Adams actually gave a certificate to ships in order to enable them to reach neutral ports in
  556
  safety. Ships sailing from London were held to require an American licence to enable them to pass freely the waters of the West Indies and Mexico. He apprehended that his noble Friend had said something officially on this subject, as he saw that today in the newspapers there was a sort of excuse put forward by Mr. Adams, stating that there had been some misapprehension of what he had done, or attempted to do, in giving a certain certificate. It appeared that the owners of a ship called the Sea Queen, now at Falmouth, applied for one of these certificates. Mr. Adams seemed to be quite surprised that he should have had such an application, and in a letter dated yesterday, in which he acknowledged the receipt of the letter, he said —
  "I regret to perceive that you labour under some misconception with regard to the course taken in reference to the certificate. It must be obvious to you that I have no authority to exercise any direction in regard either to the vessels or the voyages of Her Majesty's subjects."
  Then came what seemed a grave piece of irony—
  "When they are engaged in a lawful undertaking they have a right to rely upon the protection of their Government, and undoubtedly they will obtain it. When it is otherwise, of course they will not expect it from them, or seek it of the representatives of the United States."
  He (the Marquess of Clanricarde) suspected that that reply was produced by some sort of hint that Mr. Adams had received after the first certificate he issued, and he asserted in that letter that he would not issue any certificate to Her Majesty's subjects or to English vessels. This naturally inclined them to consider to what persons or what ships the United States Envoy did issue his certificate, and what were the circumstances under which the matter became known to the public. He thought their Lordships would agree with him that both the ships of another Power and the subjects of another Power, so long as they wire in this country, were under the municipal authority of the country, and under the law of the land, and that no ship clearing from the port of London was under the necessity of obtaining a paper from Mr. Adams to manifest her lawful character. Now, what were the facts? A Mr. Howell, a New York contractor, in conjunction with a Mr. Zerman, made a contract to supply the Mexicans with arms to fight against the French. There upon the representative of the Power which insisted so much upon neutrality gave his certificate to this New York contractor and Mexican captain; who,

  557
  having purchased £80,000 worth of arms, went to Lloyd's to get a ship and insure with the underwriters. But would any one tell him (the Marquess of Clanricarde) that Mr. Adams, when he gave the certificate, did not think it would be a British ship that, would convey those arms to Matamoras? What was the use made of the certificate? If it was not for a British ship, and for Her Majesty's subjects, why was it taken to the underwriters at Lloyd's in order to effect an insurance by showing that the ship would be secure from capture by Americans? This transaction was altogether a gross departure from all rule, all propriety, and all the practice of diplomacy, such as could not be allowed to pass unnoticed by that House. He did not know, but he concluded that it could not pass without the notice of his noble Friend at the head of the Foreign Office, and he should therefore like to hour, as far as official convenience and the interests of the public service would permit, what representations had been made upon the subject. There was a third topic upon which he wanted explanation, which he approached with more sorrow, because it was a matter which appeared to rest very much with Her Majesty's Ministers themselves — he meant the withdrawal of the mails from on board a ship called the Sea Queen, and the issuing of a notification, that for the present British ships trading in the Gulf of Mexico to Matamoras and the Mexican ports in general would be what was politely termed "relieved from the necessity of carrying any ship letters." This might not mean that they would be relieved from the necessity enforced by law; but that, as had been announced by the Foreign Secretary, the, Post Office did not intend, for the present, to send any ship letters by traders trading to those ports. He should like to know if Her Majesty's Government could give any reason for taking such a step except that of fear of the American fleet? He used the words with shame and with some indignation. But what else could it mean? The letters had been put on board; but the owners of the vessel said they would not let her sail with them on account of what had occurred in former instances, unless the Government gave them some protection. They alluded to what had happened in the cases of the Adela and the Peterhoff, in which the grossest violation of international law took place, and acts were perpetrated which could not he described otherwise than as piracy. In those
  558
  cases a direct insult had been offered to the British Crown by the violation of the seals of the royal mail-bag. And for what purpose was this done? In the case of the Adela the mail-bags, bearing the seals of Her Majesty's Post Office, were opened, find the letters searched, in order to find some correspondence on which they might fix a charge against the ship which carried the letters. Could they bear such things with temper, and could they submit to them tamely? Of course, the official position of Ministers required them to assume a calmness which he was sure they could not as Englishmen feel in the matter. But he thought it was time that Parliament spoke and spoke strongly. He had spoken strongly because he felt strongly, but he thought the time had come when they should act. The owners of the ship, to which he sail alluded, stated that they were willing to sail if the Government put a mail agent on board, as his presence would afford some guarantee to any officer of the United States who might visit the ship that she was engaged in legitimate trade, and therefore would serve as a protection against capture. The Postmaster General and the Secretary for War refused, he thought very properly, to send a mail agent on board. But he thought that they ought to have afforded them protection of another kind. They ought to have immediately applied to the Admiralty for a reinforcement of our naval force in the Gulf of Mexico, and to have sent out a fast sailing steamer to the Admiral in command in those waters, telling him that such a reinforcement was at hand, and that he would he held responsible that no further outrages of this kind should he committed on British ships, It was a farce to talk of sending the ships to prize courts. In January, 1862, the noble Earl laid down, in an able despatch, the rules and principles upon which we must insist, and which the Government of the United States must observe, or take the consequences. He knew it would he said that it was very dangerous to talk of these delicate matters; but he was not of that opinion. His experience had convinced him that, on former occasions, there had been too much reticence and reserve exercised in Parliament on patent facts, he had no wish that the country should drift into another war. He thought it heft that the American Government should know what the British people would not submit to. In the affair of the Trent there was no great difficulty in coming to

  559
  an arrangement, when the feelings of the country were excited, and it was known that there was considerable activity in the Admiralty and the Military Departments. He thought it right that the Government of the United States should be called upon virtually to decide whether they did or did not mean to go to war with us. He did not think they did. But so flagrant had been the outrages committed, even independent of the two last cases, that the newspapers abroad believed that it was the intention of that Government to drive this country into a war with them. He remembered the speech of Commodore Wilkes at the dinner at which he was entertained by American merchants, when he was fresh from the glories of the Trent affair, and it amounted to this—that he would lose no opportunity of insulting the British flag or of injuring British commerce wherever he might find it. If these matters were allowed to go on as they had been; if it were a fact that Her Majesty's Government did not dare to send ship letters in their own mail-bags into those seas; if our traders did not dare to venture there, and our merchants were obliged to apply to foreign nations for ships in order that their trade might be protected, Commodore Wilkes might set a broom at his mast head, like the Dutch admiral of old, and proclaim that he had swept British ships and British trade away from that coast. That was what was at the bottom of it. They were determined to drive British ships away from that coast. Since he came down to the House that evening, The Shipping and Mercantile Gazette had been put into his hands. That journal invited attention to the following advertisement, for the bona fides of which they were in a condition to vouch:—"Wanted, a French vessel to load for a good English island in the West Indies. Apply to Kay & Co., shipbrokers, Pudding Lane, E.C." We had come to this then—we were driven to apply for French ships for our merchandise, because French ships were protected, while our own were not. This was a state of things that must lead to serious results; and he should he glad if, upon the points he had mentioned, his noble Friend would be in a condition to give satisfactory explanations. He had great confidence in the noble Earl and the noble Lord at the head of the Government; but these were things that Parliament could not pass over in silence, and it would be for the Government to satisfy Parliament and the country that it would uphold the mercan-
  560
  tile interests of the country, and, above all, that it would maintain the honour of the British Crown.
  EARL RUSSELL: My noble Friend has made a very warm speech upon this subject, and would be perfectly justified if the points to which he alluded had been facts proven, and were not, for the most part, assumed by him to be facts. For instance, he stated that various vessels had been condemned by the prize courts—the Adela, the Peterhoff, and others. That, certainly, is unknown to me, because though the Adela has been condemned by the Prize Court of Key West, an appeal has been made; and with regard to the Peterhoff we have no account that any trial has taken place. For my own part, instead of proceeding on assumptions, I have thought it my duty, in the grave and responsible position which I hold, not to proceed in any of those cases without seeking, in the first place, the best information as to the facts that could be procured, and, in the next place, without referring to the Law Officers of the Crown in order to know the character to be attached to those facts. I have not thought it right to proceed in matters of such difficulty without taking soundings at every step. That has been my course in the various instances to which my noble Friend has referred. First, with regard to the Dolphin, I thought it necessary, having received the reports with regard to that vessel, to refer those reports to the Law Officers of the Crown; and what they say is, that it does not appear to them, from the papers, that there was a primâ facie ground for seizure; they do not see any probable reason for her capture; but, they add, there may be facts unknown to me and unknown to them, with respect to the master of that vessel, which may have afforded sufficient grounds for sending the vessel to a prize court. But they say that two evident violations of neutral rights have taken place with regard to that vessel. They state that the ship of war which took the Dolphin had made use of a neutral port for the purpose of watching British merchant vessels, and that as soon as the Dolphin left the port, she was immediately pursued, and when she had passed beyond the three miles of water of the neutral Power, she was seized by this United States vessel of war. There is another point upon which they say there is great reason for complaint—namely, the taking of a part of the crew out of the vessel and landing them afterwards upon

  561
  neutral territory. With regard to these two matters, they say there cannot he a doubt that Her Majesty's Government have a right to complain; and accordingly, having this day received their report, which is dated yesterday, I shall immediately, by the next mail, bring those matters of complaint under the notice of the United States Government. My noble Friend says that this impunity which the United State? have affected to claim is owing to our neglect of outrages which have taken place on the part of the United Stales in time past. Now, with regard to that particular point to which the Law Officers have referred—namely, the unneutral use of a neutral port—the placing there of a belligerent vessel to watch a neutral one and pursue her immediately after her departure—a case of that kind took place last year at Madeira with respect to the Tuscarora. It was immediately brought to the attention of the United States Government; they laid down rules by which such conduct should not be permitted, and said that the officer who had committed the offence, if it could be shown that he had done so, should he censured. That was the reply of the United States Government, and I must say it seems to me a very fair reply. It was, in fact, a proper reparation for the offence that had been committed. Well, then, again we complain that in certain cases there are no searches. With respect to that they say that no vessel was to be seized without a search. They lay it down, which, I believe, is a correct interpretation of the law of nations—
  "That when that visit is made, the vessel is not then to be seized without a search carefully made so far as to render it reasonable to believe that she is engaged in carrying contraband of war to the insurgents and to their ports, or otherwise violating the blockade; and that if it shall appear that she is actually bound and passing from one friendly or so-called neutral port to another, and not bound or proceeding to or from a port in the possession of the insurgents, then she cannot be lawfully seized."
  Now, that is the rule which the United States Secretary of State has laid down for the guidance of the Secretary to the Navy, and of the United States navy itself. Well, then, it is not fair to assume that in a case where the rule is apparently violated the United States may he able to show that the vessel that has been seized was not proceeding from one neutral port to another, but that she was proceeding to a port of the belligerent States, while apparently on her way to n neutral port.
  562
  That is a case which the Law Officers of the Crown say frequently occurs, and in such case we should not be able to make good our complaint of the vessel being carried before a prize court. Even supposing— as I think probable—that Admiral Wilkes and other officers have violated those rules, we have no reason to assume that reparation when asked will not be given, and that the United States Government will not conform to the rules they have themselves laid down. I do not think, then, it is convenient—I will say more, I think it tends to interrupt the friendly relations between the two nations, as soon as you have a report of an outrage, to say that the Government of a friendly people will act in contravention of the law of nations; that they meant to commit an offence, and that they will refuse reparation. On the contrary, we are bound to assume either that there were some facts not known to us, which will show that the act was not indefensible; or else, the act being wrong, that the Government of a friendly nation will, even from regard to its own character and honour, give reparation. This, then, is the case of the Dolphin. There are no apparent primâ facie grounds for the seizure; and if it turns out that there were no grounds, then we must not assume that the United States will refuse to conform to the rules which they have themselves laid down. My noble Friend then adverted to the letter of Mr. Adams which has appeared in the public prints. I must pay that the act of Mr. Adams was a very extraordinary, and, in my opinion, a most unwarrantable act—I cannot conceive that it can be proper for a person holding a diplomatic position in this country to issue such a permit to a vessel. That is making a distinction between vessels departing from the ports of this country, and giving a security to one vessel as distinguished from another. It is not possible, as it appears to me, that he can bestow that favour on one vessel without making an invidious, and perhaps dangerous, distinction as against other vessels. There can be no doubt that the conduct of Mr. Adams is entirely unwarrantable; but I should not think of complaining to Mr. Adams. I shall bring that conduct before the consideration of the United States Government. It is for them to say in what manner such an act should be visited. My noble Friend next went on to name a case which he described fairly enough, according to the facts known to him. But the

  563
  whole facts were evidently not known to my noble Friend. He spoke of an inter view at the Foreign Office between myself and several owners of ships and persons connected with the trade of the port of London, with respect to vessels sailing to Matamoras, The account of that inter view, although, generally speaking, fairly given, was certainly marked by many omissions. The persons who came to me complained of this grievance. They said it might happen that the letter-bags that were sent by their vessels by the Postmaster General might contain letters that were written by persons connected with or favourable to the Federal Government, and that those persons might invent a story that the ship was conveying stores to the Confederates, that they might put false names to those letters, that those letters might be opened, and used as evidence against the vessel, and that there was not sufficient security against such practices being resorted to, because they could not avoid taking the mail-bags, in consequence of shipowners being liable to a penalty of £200 if they refused to take the letter-bags. They therefore complained that their ships and cargoes might be put in danger by acts of Her Majesty's Government which were beyond their control. I considered that matter, and also a proposal which they made to me, that an agent should be put in charge of the bags, as is done on board the Queen's packet ships. Upon consideration, there appeared to me to be many objections to my taking such a course. I should have fallen into the same error as that of Mr. Adams; I should have singled out particular vessels and given them a protection which others would not enjoy. At all events, that should not be done without consideration There was, however, one obvious redress which I could give; I could reply to them, "You say that you are compelled to take these mail-bags, and that your ships and cargoes are put in jeopardy by the act of the Postmaster General. Well, I will relieve you from that danger, and I will ask the Postmaster General not to oblige you to take the mail-bags." It appears to me that was a remedy for the grievance of which they complained; but it seems to have been understood out of doors as if it were a declaration that we would not send mail-bags to Matamoras, and, that as my noble Friend says, we were afraid of the consequences that might happen. What we really did was to Bay to shipowners,
  564
  "If you like to take mail-bags in these vessels, you shall he at liberty to do so; but we will not compel you to do so." I have, now in my hand a letter written to the Foreign Office by the Postmaster General, which states that for the present no shipletter mail shall he put on board any vessel sailing for Matamoras "unless with the full concurrence of the commander." It is only that we do not use the compulsory power that the law gives us in these cases. I confess it would have been hard upon the owners of vessels to have refused to give them the security for which they asked. I have no doubt there will be many vessels the commanders of which will be quite ready to take these letters; but if they do, we ought not to leave them to say they have been put in jeopardy by the act of the Government, nor ought the law lo be put in force to their injury. My hon. Friend states truly that the fears of the owners of the Sea Queen, and other vessels were founded on what had been done in the case of the Adela—namely, that the United States authorities had got possession of her letter-bags. Now, in the letter of Mr. Seward, dared August 8, 1862, there is the following order: —
  "And, finally, that official seals, or locks, or fastenings, of foreign authorities are in no case, nor on any pretext, to be broken, or parcels covered by them read by any naval authorities of the United States; but all bags or other things conveying such parcels and duly sealed or fastened by foreign authorities will be, in the discretion of the United States officer to whom they may come, delivered to the consul, commanding naval officer, or Legation of the foreign Government, to be opened, upon the understanding that whatever is contraband or important as evidence concerning the character of a captured vessel will be remitted to the prize court, or to the Secretary of State at Washington; or such sealed bags or parcels may be at once forwarded to this department, to the end that the proper authorities of the foreign Government may receive the same without delay. The President desires especially that naval officers may be informed that the fact that a suspected vessel has been indicated to them as cruising in any limit which has been prescribed to them by the Navy Department does not in any way authorize them to depart from the practice of the rules of visitation, search, and capture prescribed by the law of nations."
  That is the general direction given by the Secretary of State to the Secretary of the United States navy, to be forwarded by him to the officers commanding vessels of the Federal navy, It may be that complaints have been made in this country which are not without foundation; it may be that United States officers have not observed these rules, but have gone be-

  565
  yond the directions that they have received; it may be that they have seized vessels that were really going to Matamoras or some neutral port without sufficient evidence that the cargo was of a contraband character; but it does seem to me, in spite of what my noble Friend says, that the Government of this country is bound to take a calm view of these matters, to represent them fairly to the United States Government, and not to presume that the Government of the United States would fail in their duty to a friendly Power, or that they would countenance outrages which are against the law of nations. These representations will be made, and I expect, that if they are just, reparation will not be refused. I have already said that what took place at the interview which I had with the shipowners has not been fully given. One mistake has certainly been made. It is said that I expressed surprise at the information that certain British subjects had been made prisoners, and detained in a place of confinement by the authorities of the United States. I certainly did not express any such surprise, for I had been reading that very morning the representations not only of our Consuls, but of those British subjects themselves who had been so detained, and detained apparently with great and unnecessary harshness, the object being merely to detain them in order that they might give evidence in the prize court. It cannot be doubted that there are precedents showing, that when a case is brought before the prize court, the master of the vessel may give evidence of the real character of the cargo and the destination of the vessel, and that he may be detainee for that purpose. But it seems to me that the United States authorities have gone beyond what they fairly had a right to do. When we were belligerents, many cases involving belligerent and neutral rights were brought before a very eminent Judge, whose decisions are generally and universally respected; and though I believe he carried the principle favourable to captors to perhaps rather a severe length, beyond doubt they were in conformity with the law of nations. I allude to Lord Stowell. We were the belligerents; we are now neutrals. But, as I have already said, I think it would not become the character of this nation, because we had changed our position, to invoke another law, and another measure; to declare that those decisions of Lord Stowell, which were advan-
  566
  tageous to us when we were belligerents, should be thrown aside and rejected by us when we became neutrals. Accordingly, those persons who think, that whatever nay be the destination of a ship, and whatever papers she may have on board showing that she is about to break the blockade, or to carry arms to some one of the Confederate States now in hostility with the United States, they are to be protected by the power of the British nation in contradiction to all our own decisions, and in contradiction to the declared law of nations, will, I hope, know that the British Government never will place itself in that position. Let us look impartially at these cases which lave occurred. It may be that we have suffered grievous wrong; it may be that we have a right to considerable reparation; but let the two Governments treat the cases fairly. We have on this side of the Atlantic the decisions of a great Judge; in America they have the views laid down by Judge Story and by such a writer as Mr. Wheaton. With these authorities to guide us, let us see who is in the right and who is in the wrong. But let us discuss the circumstances with a wish to do justice to each other. Do not let us be led by passion into anything which is not founded on justice, and which cannot afterwards be justified in the face of the world.
  THE EARL OF CARNARVONsaid, he was anxious to obtain from his noble Friend an explanation of one part of the observations he had addressed to their Lordships. In recapitulating the circumstances connected with the Sea Queen, his noble Friend stated that the owners of the vessel complained of the difficulty in which they were placed by the apprehension that they might ultimately be compromised by the supposed contents of the mail-bags, which might induce American cruisers to commit acts of aggression. The terms of that answer appeared to imply a certain doubt or confusion in the mind of his noble Friend with regard to the supposed right of the American Government to arrest any ship, to open any mail-bags, or to take from them treasonable correspondence which they might contain. He spoke under the correction of noble and learned Lords present, when he ventured to say that no amount of treasonable correspondence within those bags, once they were sealed with the broad seal of England, would warrant the officers of any foreign Power in stopping the vessels which conveyed those bags, in breaking the seals, and in taking from

  567
  them the letters which were therein. Why, in the letter which had been read from Mr. Seward he distinctly disclaimed any such right, and said it should not be exercised. But, according to the inference which might be drawn from the answer of his noble Friend, it was obvious that a ship passing from Dover to Calais, and happening to have treasonable correspondence on board, would be just as liable to capture by American cruisers as vessels sailing between Nassau and Matamoras, Nassau and Liverpool, or any other neutral ports. He hoped his noble Friend would be able to explain the unsatisfactory impression which had been created by his words.
  EARL RUSSELL: I did not for a moment suppose that a naval officer of the United States would have a right to open these mail-bags. But as the members of the deputation said such a thing might happen, however contrary to law and justice, I thought it was my duty to relieve them from a fear of that possible contingency. Mr. Seward had, in fact, admitted, as my noble Friend has said, that such a proceeding would not be regular, and has given orders to stop it.
  THE EARL OF DERBY: But the admission made by the Foreign Secretary that there is reason to suppose the United States officers might commit an illegal act—an admission which is involved in their relieving these vessels from the necessity of carrying the mail-bags—does imply a sort of contemplation on their part of the probability of that illegal act, without any accompanying declaration that such an act, if attempted, must call for the intervention and very serious notice of Her Majesty's Government. I think the noble Earl was quite right in refusing to put a mail agent on board vessels carrying mail bags, because he could not appoint one to a particular ship without likewise sending out agents in all the others, or without exposing those which had not an agent on board to still greater risks than they at present incur. But I think he was to blame in admitting as a ground of exemption from the duty of carrying the mail-bags, and that a practical and serious injury was done to British commerce in admitting, that there was a risk of officers of the American Government so misconducting themselves as to take these vessels, and to break open the mail-bags on board. I think he ought to have held this language — that shipowners are bound to carry the mails, and that we
  568
  are bound to protect our commerce in the instance of those vessels. Of this I am quite sure—that if those vessels had been captured, whatever might be the result of the investigation, this country would never have submitted quietly to acts affording so serious a ground for complaint against the American Government.
  EARL RUSSELL: No doubt there would be a serious ground of complaint, and I will not suppose that the United States Government would sanction any such proceeding on the part of their officers. But we have seen, both in the case of the Tuscarora and in that which happened the other day, that naval officers have acted in entire contravention of Mr. Seward's instructions; and therefore I certainly did suppose it possible that some United States officer might in this respect likewise violate the general rules and directions of the American Secretary of State. No doubt, we might have insisted on the shipowners taking the mail-bags and exposing themselves to the risk; but I think it would have been very harsh to put in force against gentlemen who made these representations to us the compulsory powers as regards the carriage of mails which the law places in the bands of the Government.
  THE EARL OF DERBY: The noble Earl says he does not mean to contend that the United Slates Government would have sanctioned such a proceeding, but he does think it possible that without the sanction of that Government some indiscreet officer might adopt this unwarrantable course. Evidently the danger which was apprehended from the breaking open the mail-bags was that letters would be discovered leading to the condemnation of the vessel. [Earl RUSSELL: I did not say the condemnation.] Well, if not exposed lo condemnation, what was the injury done by having the letter-bags on board? If the vessel was subjected to no greater inconvenience from carrying the letter-bags than she would have been if she carried no mails at all, I do not see what was the ground for exempting her from liability to perform this duty. But I understand the case to be argued on the ground of the risk which it is supposed would be incurred if an officer of the United States navy by an illegal act obtained possession of traitorous correspondence on board a British ship. Does the noble Lord mean to admit, that if such a course were pursued, this country would recognise the right of the United States to condemn the

  569
  vessel on evidence so procured, which could not be legally brought into court? Would he not be bound to protest against the use of information acquired in such a manner, as well us against the original act of illegality itself?
  EARL RUSSELL: There can he no doubt that we should have a very good ground of complaint, and that we should have a right to redress, which, no doubt, would be afforded. Still, I think it would be a very serious injury to the owners of a vessel to insist on a course which would expose her to the danger of her being taken first to Key West, and afterwards to some other port, possibly to Boston or New York.
  EARL GREY: My Lords, I think it is greatly to be regretted that my noble Friend, in stating the course he meant to I pursue, did not explain himself more clearly to the parties concerned. The noble Earl should have said, "If you carry these bags, you will incur no danger, because, if, they are opened, the officer who opens them will commit an offence against this country, which we shall be bound to notice, and to obtain for you ample pecuniary compensation for any damage or loss which yon may sustain." It further appears to me, that the parties interested in these vessels might very fairly and reasonably desire to carry these letter-bags; because, if I am not mistaken, by shipping mails to a neutral port they come under a contract with the British Government to go to that port. They are bound to deliver the bags which they receive from the British Post Office at the neutral port to which they are consigned, and I presume, that if they failed to do so, they would incur the penalties attaching to a breach of contract with Her Majesty's Post Office. It might, therefore, be of importance to them to have the bags on board, as affording presumptive evidence that they were bound to Matamoras, and not to one of the Confederate ports, and I do not think that it is just or reasonable that British owners who are trading to a really neutral port, and who, as long as their destination is that port, are at liberty to carry contraband of war—I do not see any reason why they should be deprived of any security which may be afforded to them by the presumption which might arise from the carrying of letters. The only fault I have to find with the Government, is that they omitted to explain this more fully to the merchants concerned. With regard to the other
  570
  vessels, I cannot doubt that they will pursue a right course. Whatever ground there may be for fearing that the American Government will not act fairly by us, we are at present bound to assume that they will do so. Unless there is a denial of justice, we have no right to make a quarrel with them upon the subject. I hope and trust that the prize courts, before which the vessels are brought, will do their duty honestly and fairly; and if the facts are as alleged, will award proper pecuniary compensation to the owners of the vessels.
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYsaid, the noble Earl (Earl Grey) was under a misapprehension as to the obligation owners of vessels entered into when they carried letters. There was a threat distinction between an ordinary ship taking letters and a packet which took them under contract. In the former case there was no contract either expressed or implied between the captain or owner of the ship and the Post Office, the authorities of which had no means of controlling the voyage of the ship. There was nothing in the engagement to prevent such a ship deviating from her course—as, for instance, calling at a Confederate port before she went to Matamoras. It would therefore be no advantage to the owner of a ship to have letters on board. On the contrary, it was considered an onerous obligation, as was proved by the imposition of a penalty of £200, imposed by a recent Act, for a refusal to take letters. It was of this that the shipowners complained in their interview with his noble Friend. They said—
  "It is hard that we should be liable to a penalty for not taking letters which may render us liable to condemnation or interference by American cruisers, because it is possible that ship letters may be written by friends of the Federals to compromise us and our interests."
  It was no answer to say that the American captain would be doing an illegal act if he opened the letters, because, although redress might ultimately be obtained from the Government at Washington, the ship would be subjected to great delay and loss, which might make shipowners unwilling to incur the risk, and induced them to ask to be released from the obligation. He did not see what remedy for the immediate inconvenience his noble Friend could have given them except to recommend that the right of the Post Office to put these letters on board all ships should not be insisted upon, and that they should, at their own

  571
  request, be relieved from the obligation which, according to law, rested upon them.
  LORD WODEHOUSErather thought that there was an expression in the speech of the noble Earl the Secretary for Foreign Affairs which intimated that there might be a question as to whether a neutral vessel might not he lawfully captured, if the ultimate destination of goods conveyed to a neutral port after they had been landed was for a belligerent consumer, [Earl RUSSELL: No. nothing of the kind.] He was glad he had misunderstood Ins noble Friend on this point, but the particular point to which he wished to advert was the injury done to the public by being deprived of the opportunity of sending ship letters by any vessel that might he going to a friendly or neutral port The answer of the noble Earl to the deputation of shipowners should have been: —"We are not bound to estimate the disadvantage to British ships going into the neighbourhood of blockaded ports; but of this we can assure you—that the American Government has declared that it has issued instructions to its cruisers to respect the rule of international taw, that the seals of bags of foreign letters should not be opened; and further, if, notwithstanding these instructions, such bags were opened, and the correspondence found in them led to the condemnation, that—as the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Derby) said—was a proceeding which this country would never submit to, and consequently any shipowner who incurred such a risk would have the support of the Government in seeking for redress." And he would add this—that whilst he concurred with the noble Earl the Secretary of State in thinking, as he was sure every Member of that House and every Member of Parliament would think, that these questions, so grave and delicate in their nature, should be conducted in the most calm and considerate spirit; yet, on the other hand, he must express his conviction that such was the temper of the people of the United States that it was absolutely necessary that this country, while acting in a calm, should also act in a firm spirit. Their Lordships might rely upon it that the only way to preserve peace in these dangerous complications was by not bating one jot or tittle of our rights, while we carefully respected the rights of others.
  EARL GRANVILLE: Both my noble Friends the noble Baron (Lord Wodehouse) and the noble Earl (Earl Grey)
  572
  have stated, though in somewhat different terms, the answer which my noble Friend ought to have given to the merchants who waited upon him with reference, to this matter. The impression upon my mind is that it was prudent of him to have given neither of those answers, it would have been taking a great deal upon himself to have insured the owners and guaranteed them against any possible loss. We know that when a vessel is seized and taken before a prize court, and the court, in compliance with international law, afterwards releases the vessel and awards damages to the owners, the compensation which is made never covers the whole amount of loss and damage which is sustained by her owners; and if my noble Friend had given the assurances which have been mentioned, he might have been understood as assuming a responsibility to secure something more than this Compensation. Nor do I think that it would have been wise for him to have made a grandiloquent speech promising that these merchants and shipowners should be protected against outrages committed upon them in breach of international law. I trust that such assurances are superfluous. I think that there is no defect in the course which the Government have taken, or are prepared to take, which shows that they are not ready in every case in which the honour or the interests of the country are concerned to net with all duo regard to the observances of international law with equal firmness and calmness.
  LORD REDESDALEasked, whether the noble Earl the Foreign Secretary admitted that the United States Government had a right to interfere with the mail-bags? His observations seemed to go that effect.
  EARL RUSSELLwas understood to say, that he had not said that.

  VICE-ADMIRALTY COURTS BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill to facilitate the Appointment of Vice-Admirals and of Officers in Vice-Admiralty Courts in Her Majesty's Possessions Abroad, and to confirm the past Proceedings, to extend the Jurisdiction, and to amend the Practice of those Courts—Was presented by The Duke of NEWCASTLE, and road 1a, (No. 79.)
  House adjourned at a quarter past Eight o'clock, till To-morrow, half past Ten o'clock.