asked the Chief Secretary for Ireland, If it is a fact that there are about four times as many prisons and bridewells in Ireland as are required for the average number of prisoners in that Country; and, if so, whether the Government is prepared to bring in a Bill to amalgamate some of those prison establishments, and thereby relieve the cesspayers from unnecessary taxation?

, in reply, said, that he could not say that there were four times as many prisons as were required, though the statement would be quite true, to say the least of it, with regard to bridewells. His attention had been directed to the subject, and he hoped to bring in a Bill to deal with it.

asked the President of the Local Government Board, Whether he will lay upon the Table all Correspondence relative to the emigration of children to Canada and to Mr. Doyle's Report thereon; and, if he will state to the House whether he has taken any and what steps in regard to the said emigration?

, in reply, said, that Mr. Doyle's Report was a subject of communications now going on between the Colonial Office and the Government of Canada, and there was no Correspondence which could at present with propriety be laid on the Table. He (Mr. Sclater-Booth) had not as yet taken any steps with regard to this form of emigration, and he saw no prospect of being able to do so at present.

asked the First Lord of the Admiralty, How many gentlemen forming a scientific staff have been nominated to accompany the Arctic Expedition; and, if, as in accordance with his statement, the cabin accommodation is too limited to enable him to appoint a chaplain, he will take into his consideration the desirability of cancelling the nomination of one of these scientific officials, so as to appoint a gentleman who might combine a special scientific qualification with that also of being in holy orders?

As there are several Questions on the Notice Paper relating to this subject for future days, and as it appears that considerable interest is taken in the matter, perhaps I may be allowed to give a rather fuller explanation than I could do by simply answering the Question of the hon. Gentleman. The Arctic Expedition is to consist of two ships, one to carry 62 men, and the other 59—that is, officers and men in- cluded. Those ships are intended to winter about 200 miles apart. None of Her Majesty's Ships carrying less than 170 men are provided with a chaplain. Nevertheless, considering the peculiar nature of the service, and the length of time during which the Expedition is likely to be away, I should have been glad to have treated the case specially, and to have appointed a chaplain to each ship; but the difficulty has arisen which always is experienced with regard to Arctic Expeditions—namely, a want of space. There is no instance, so far as I can learn, by a search of the history of these Expeditions, of any chaplain having been carried in an Arctic ship, except in 1821, when a gentleman who had been appointed Astronomer to a previous Expedition had, before the starting of the Expedition of 1821, taken orders. He was appointed Astronomer to the ship and chaplain also. Each ship is to carry stores and provisions for three years, and it may be well supposed that they occupy a considerable space. With regard to the ships that have been selected for the purpose, the space in their holds is considerably curtailed by the internal strengthening that they have received in the Dockyards in order to fit them to encounter the ice. In addition to that the usual compliment of officers for ships of this size has been supplemented in order to provide for the sledging parties. The calculation is that five sledging parties can be equipped from each ship, with an officer at the head of each party. Besides the extra number of executive officers we have appointed two doctors to each ship. That, of course, adds to the amount of accommodation required. The result is that room for only one scientific person can be found on board each ship; and my hon. Friend asks me whether the nomination of one of these gentlemen cannot be cancelled to allow a scientific chaplain to be taken instead. Supposing that were done with regard to one of the ships, we should still leave one ship without a chaplain, and the difficulty of complying with this suggestion is further enhanced by the fact that the scientific members of the Expedition were not selected by the Admiralty, but by the Royal Society, for their peculiar qualifications for the post. I have made inquiries of the Admiral Superintendent at Portsmouth, under whoso direction the ships have been fitted out, as to the possibility of finding by any means room for a chaplain on board in addition to those who are intended to take part in the Expedition; and what he says is this—

"It would not be possible to do so without seriously encroaching upon the space required for provisions and stores."

The fact is that every cubic foot of space has been appropriated in the most exact manner for different purposes connected with the Expedition. I think my hon. Friend and the House will see that, under these circumstances, the difficulty of appointing a chaplain to the Expedition is very great.

May I ask how many naval officers are appointed to each ship?

There will be a captain and commander on board the foremost ship, and a captain on board the second ship; four lieutenants and one sub-lieutenant besides in each ship, in addition to the engineers and medical officers.

Sir, the Notice Paper which has been distributed amongst hon. Members will have conveyed to their minds the reason why I venture to trouble them on the present occasion. The question I have to bring under their notice is one of Breach of Privilege, and I assure the House that I feel the utmost confidence, that when I come to the conclusion of the short statement I think it necessary to make, the House will be of opinion that although I may have interrupted their deliberations, it has been in the cause of right and justice. I think that at this time of day it would be an idle and ludicrous thing if any hon. Member were to get up and complain of a technical breach of those ordinary Rules of the House which are intended to produce good general results, but which are not in- tended to be enforced, unless in exceptional cases, when some great breach of them has been committed; but when the honour of a Member of this House is concerned—and indeed the dignity of the House itself—I am satisfied that I shall not appeal in vain for a patient hearing and an impartial consideration.

"It is not meet That every nice offence should bear its comment"

in dealing with the Rules of this House, and if I had not to bring before the House the case of a Member, who is personally unconnected with myself, and with whom I was unacquainted until the other day, I should not have ventured to intrude myself upon the House. Sir, I venture to say that it is one of the well-established Rules of this House that in the case of a Select Committee, no person outside that Committee has any right to print or circulate evidence which is in course of being taken and on which that Committee has not deliberated. It is not necessary to quote an authority for that proposition; but so late as the 21st of April, 1837, it was resolved by this House—

"That, according to the undoubted privileges of this House, and for the due protection of the public interest, the evidence taken by any Select Committee of this House, and the documents presented to such Committee, and which have not been reported to the House, ought not to be published by any Member of such Committee, nor by any other person."

And, Sir, that Resolution has not remained unexercised, or unused. I believe there are precedents in the Journals of the House having exercised its plenary authority of imprisonment on those who have offended in this respect. It will be in the recollection of every one here that very early in the Session a Committee was appointed on a subject which engrossed a great deal of public interest—the subject of the way in which certain Foreign loans were effected in the English market by divers Governments, especially in connection with certain South American Republics, and the transactions connected therewith. A large part of the community had had great reason to complain, if not of positive fraud, still of transactions that savoured very much of it. Upon the occasion of that Committee being moved for, I took the liberty of making a few observations in furtherance of the views of the hon. and learned Gentleman who proposed it (Sir Henry James). I was aware that considerable anxiety was felt by many not undistinguished Members of this House as to what the result might be of appointing a Select Committee to fulfil a new and delicate duty; but I confess I never thought that, when that Committee had sat not more than five or six times, an instance of grave doubts on the part of hon. Members as to the expediency and propriety of entering upon so delicate, if not dangerous, a task would have to be presented to the House in the interests of substantial justice, and for the purpose of vindicating the honour of an hon. Member of the House. On the 22nd March last, the hon. Member for Graves-end (Captain Bedford Pim) was examined. I happened to be present during part of that examination, and I will only say of it that it was at least a very strong sort of examination.

I rise to Order. As Chairman of that Committee, Sir, I must request your opinion as to whether it is competent to the hon. Gentleman to go in full House into the matters that pass within that Committee before they have reported to the House?

It is not competent to the hon. Member to refer to matters which have arisen in the Committee. The hon. Gentleman should adhere as strictly as possible to the matter he wishes to bring before the House, which I understand to be that The Times and Daily News newspapers have published articles which he considers to constitute a breach of Privilege. The proper course would be that those articles should be read by the Clerk at the Table, and the hon. Member, in raising the question of Privilege, should confine himself to the points raised in those articles.

Perhaps I went a little beyond the point that I intended to raise. I merely wished to let the House know as a matter of fact that Captain Bedford Pim was examined on the 22nd of March.

I rise to Order again. I submit that if the hon. Gentleman is allowed to go into this, it will be expected from me that I should answer him, and I maintain that it is entirely contrary to my duty to answer him upon anything done by the Committee while the dele gation continues. When it is over, of course the House can go into it.

I will proceed, Sir, at once to the complaint I have to make. It is that in The Times of the 9th instant and in The Daily News of the same day, under the heading of "The Committee of Foreign Loans," it is stated that the Committee had sat the day previously, and the evidence taken before the Committee is then set out. It is also stated that Mr. Lowe said, he had received a letter in French from M. Herran, the Honduras Minister at Paris, which was read to the Committee in English by Mr. Kirkman Hodgson. To this letter, and especially to the opening paragraph of it, I will call special attention. The letter commenced—

reminded the hon. Gentleman that he was now referring to what had taken place before the Committee, and was therefore transgressing the Rule of the House.

At all events, I may be allowed to say that the object of the Committee was to inquire into transactions of a very delicate nature, which itself made the Rule of the House a rule of convenience and of justice. It is not necessary for me to do more than to say that I have pointed out what the Rule of the House is. I have pointed out also that that Rule has been broken, and that in breaking it a most serious injury has been done, at all events for a time, to a Member of this House. Under these circumstances, Sir, I beg leave, first of all, to move that the Clerk at the Table do read the commencement and end of the reports which appeared in The Times and The Daily News newspapers, on the 9th April instant, of the proceedings and evidence taken before the Select Committee on Foreign Loans on the 8th instant, in breach of the privileges of this House, in order that we may have proof before us of what facts were presented in those reports.

Will the hon. Member bring the articles up to the Table?

then moved—

"That the publication in 'The Times' and 'Daily News' newspapers on the 9th April instant of the proceedings and evidence taken before the Select Committee on Foreign Loans on the 8th instant is in each case a breach of the privileges of this House."

seconded the Motion. Question proposed.

said: I should like, Sir, for my own information and those around me, to be allowed to put a question to the Chairman of the Committee, though not as regards any of the subjects considered in that Committee, or of the manner of their consideration—the delicacy regarding which has been so well brought to the recollection of the House by you, Sir, within the past few minutes—but before we call, or are asked to call, two great organs of public opinion before us, evidently with purposes of disfavour and with the intention of rebuking their presumption, I think we owe it to ourselves to know whether they have been tempted into a disregard of the old practice of the House by any circumstances which may have arisen in the conduct of the Committee. That I may not be misunderstood, I wish, on the authority of a right hon. Gentleman with whom I have been in communication in the last few minutes, to ask whether provision is not made in the Select Committee room, by the usual accommodation of tables, chairs, and stationery, for the reporters of The Times and The Daily News; and whether they have not frequently, if not continuously, exercised their vocation with the knowledge, cognizance, and, presumably, with the sanction of the Committee. When that question has been answered, it will be time enough to consider whether that is a variation from the old practice. All I can say is this, that having sat upon Select Committees frequently in past Parliaments, I never saw such provision made; and although I have known incidentally that the old rule of exclusion has been evaded, I have never known the fact brought to the cognizance of the Select Committee of which I was a Member, nor do I know of a Committee of the nature of that which is now sitting, in which the rule has been disregarded. My question, therefore, will be—if I am permitted to put it to the Chairman of the Committee—whether it is the case that the public Press has been, with his sanction and cognizance, constantly present during the whole of the evidence taken before him, and whether the Committee have not been aware that the proceedings were reported de die in diem in the London Press?

Sir, I was somewhat surprised that the first Resolution moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Londonderry should have been questioned by any hon. Member of this House, and less surprised at the result, because, upon reflection, it is impossible to deny that there has been a clear breach of Privilege in the publication which he has brought under our consideration. But, Sir, the feelings with which we approach the second Resolution of my hon. Friend are of a different character. In what spirit do we approach the consideration of the conduct brought before us? It is not one of vengeance for the breach of Privilege which has been committed, because we acknowledge by the practice of this House—the courtesy of this House at least—that that act which has been described to-night—and been justly and technically described—as a breach of Privilege—is one which, if discreetly and properly exercised, is very conducive to the public benefit and not at all injurious to the honour of this House. But, Sir, there can be no doubt that when the honour of an individual Member of this House is impugned by means of this machinery it does become this House—and it is the duty of the House—fairly and candidly to consider the state of the facts before it. There is no doubt that a libel has been printed and has been circulated in these newspapers against the conduct and character of a Member of this House, and it is our duty to take notice of such a circumstance when it is brought before us. But if the object of summoning the printers of these newspapers before us be only to ascertain the means by which this publication—this offensive publication took place—we must remember that it may be possible by other means to obtain the information that is required, and if it be in the power of any Gentlemen who are Members of this House to throw light on the con-duet which is in question, I think that, instead of bringing to the Bar of the House these honest and innocent people, who were exercising a function which is beneficial to the public—I think that instead of putting them through the trouble of being summoned before the Bar of this high Assembly, it would be better if we can to obtain the information which is the only object in view, by other means; and I submit to you, Sir, that is a course which is highly desirable. Now, Sir, there are circumstances upon the surface of this narrative which I believe are not questioned, and which seem to point out that there are other means in this House of obtaining that information. We know that this libel was addressed to the Chairman of the Committee—we know that there were directions in the letter regulating the mode by which the desired publication of the libel should take place—and we know that the publication of the libel occurred exactly in the manner desired by the writer. And if there be any Member of the Committee, from the Chairman himself to those who have been least interested in the conduct of this investigation—if they have any information in their possession which can throw light upon the question, and which can at once inform the House by what means this publication occurred—I think it is not desirable that we should support the second Resolution of my hon. Friend.

I think, Sir, that any surprise that may have been felt as to the manner in which the first Resolution was received by a portion of the House might have been removed if the right hon. Gentleman had thought fit to give the benefit of his opinion and advice at an earlier moment. Upon further consideration, I think that the House arrived at a just decision in assenting to what is, in fact, evidently a truism—that a breach of Privilege has been committed in this case, as in many other cases, in the publication both of the debates of this House and the evidence taken before Committees. The right hon. Gentleman appears to think that there is greater doubt about the Resolution now submitted to the House, and that the necessity of summoning the printers of these newspapers to attend at the Bar may be obviated by the House—that the House may obtain the desired information by other means. I can only understand the observations just made by the right hon. Gentleman as an invitation to my right hon. Friend the Member for the University of London (Mr. Lowe) to state what he knows of these circumstances in his character as Chairman of the Committee. Now, Sir, my right hon. Friend has not risen, and I believe does not intend to rise, to make any statement to the House on the question, because he does not think that it is his duty as Chairman of the Committee, and does not think that it would tend to promote the object for which the Committee was appointed, were he to transgress the ordinary Rules of the House, which prevent discussion of a matter that is yet pending before a Committee of this House. When the proceedings of that Committee are at end my right hon. Friend will have no objection to answer for anything, or give any information to the House, as to what has taken place in the Committee, or to defend any conduct for which he, as Chairman of the Committee, may be responsible. But my right hon. Friend does not think that he would be justified, or that it would be desirable that he should enter into any discussion whatever at the present time as to the proceedings which have taken place in the Committee. Therefore, Sir, if the House desires that any information should be obtained as to the libel which is said to have been incidentally committed by the publishers of these newspapers, I presume that the right hon. Gentleman will object to the Motion that the printers be summoned to the Bar of the House. I am not a lawyer, and I cannot therefore pretend to give to the House any authoritative opinion upon the subject; but as to one observation which fell from the hon. Member for Londonderry as to what is said to be the protection which publishers of newspapers enjoy from actions for libel on account of their reports being backed by what takes place within the walls of the Committee-room, I should doubt very much whether the publication of a libel which is a breach of Privilege, and is declared by the House to be a breach of Privilege, would be any protection to the publishers of these newspapers; and whether the hon. Member would not be at liberty to take any proceedings he pleases, just as if this House had taken no action in the matter. But, as I have said, I am not a lawyer, and I am not able to advise the House in the matter. Before the House decides, however, upon this point, and comes to the conclusion that it is necessary to strain the acknowledged practice—the acknowledged though seldom used practice—against the publishers of newspapers, it would do well to consider whether the hon. Member for Gravesend has really any practical grievance to complain of for which he has not a remedy in the ordinary way. Not having observed that this discussion was likely to take place to-day, I am not able to refer the House to any precedents; but it appears to me that, whatever decision the House may hereafter come to, it would be extremely inconvenient to enter into the discussion of matters that are before the Committee while the proceedings of the Committee have not yet come to an end.

, wished to explain why he had seconded the Motion of the hon. Member for Londonderry. It seemed to him only fair that when some one had acted in an improper manner by charging the hon. Member for Gravesend—with whom he had never had any personal communication—with very gross fraud and with perjury, without offering himself for cross-examination, the matter should not be allowed to drop. It was he thought the duty of the House to protect the honour of its Members from attacks of that sort, and, therefore, he had seconded the Motion.

It is with extreme reluctance, Sir, that I take part in this debate, but as a Member of the Committee to which reference is made and one who may be said to have the least possible interest in it, I cannot refrain from making a few observations on the Motion before the House. I must respectfully protest against the Motion, and will give my reasons for doing so. The Motion is, that the printers of two newspapers shall be summoned to the Bar of this House to answer for a breach of Privilege, and a libel upon one of its Members. The hon. Member who has submitted this Motion has stated with a frankness that I did not anticipate, that his object in making it is not the direct one of punishing these persons who have been guilty of the breach of Privilege—that he disavowed—but an ulterior and indirect object of attacking others on whom he says the responsibility really lies. I protest respectfully against that course; because, if the desire of the hon. Member is to attach responsibility to others why does he not do in a direct manner what this Motion seeks to do in an indirect manner? But I venture to say also that in the public interest it is most undesirable that, after six weeks' inquiry the proceedings of this Committee should be in any way checked or interfered with. It might have been at one time a question whether it was advisable that this Committee should be oppointed—that is a fair question, and one upon which I at one time doubted much; but this Committee having been appointed, is this House to stultify itself by listening to indirect attacks from right and left tending to bring the proceedings of the Committee to a futile and premature conclusion? No Member of this House can have failed to observe that attempts have been made to frustrate and interfere with the proceedings of the Committee. I venture to say—if I am not going beyond what is right on this subject—that the more strenuous are these efforts to prevent our proceedings, the more determined and resolute we shall be to prosecute our investigation to a just result. But the hon. Member who has submitted this Motion tells us that his object is not to punish the printers of The Times and The Daily News—these innocent people, as the Prime Minister has described them—but that his object is to reach those whom this Motion does not appear to touch. Is the House, I ask, to lend itself to the bringing up of innocent persons, for the purpose of indirectly attacking others whom those who are interested in this Motion would not dare to attack openly? If we abuse our powers, why is not a Motion made to discharge the Committee from further proceeding, when the whole subject could be brought forward, when our tongues would be loosed, and we could defend ourselves and vindicate our conduct? If it can be shown that any Member of the Committee has been guilty of a breach of Privilege in assisting the Press to publish its proceedings, why is not that Member challenged in a fair and direct manner? I cannot, therefore, reluctant as I have been to enter into this debate, resist making this protest, and respectfully warning the House to see that they may not, in an indirect way—by a pretence of attacking The Times and The Daily News—provide the means of crippling the proceeding of the Committee and frustrating the object with which it was appointed.

I hope, Sir, before we go to a division we shall have a distinct statement from the Government as to the course they advise the House to take upon the Motion before it, because as I understood the Prime Minister—his language was rather ambiguous—he said he disapproved of the Motion, if its object could be accomplished in any other way. Therefore, I should like to know whether the object has been accomplished in another way; and, if not, what course he means to take. Now, Sir, this is a motion of a very serious character, because it affects the relations between the Press and the House of Commons—the most important question, perhaps, that appertains to the public life of England. Now, Sir, that a breach of Privilege, technically, has been committed in the Committee-room cannot be doubted; and if I were to turn my eyes to the right or to the left—which I shall be very careful not to do—I am afraid that I should observe that that breach of Privilege is being committed at this very moment, and that a breach of Privilege will be committed to-morrow morning when the speech of the right hon. Gentleman appears in The Times and The Daily News. But will a Motion be therefore made to summon the printers of those journals to the Bar of the House for a breach of Privilege?—because the breach of Privilege is not in the character of what is printed, but in the fact that anything has been printed at all. This breach of Privilege is not because what is published is a libel at all, but because our proceedings have been published. I should like to ask any Gentleman forming part of a responsible Government—responsible to the country for the re- lations between the Press and the House of Commons—to tell me what is the difference between a report of proceedings in a public Committee-room and a report of the proceedings in this House. If you intended that the proceedings of that Committee should be private, you ought not to have admitted the public or the reporters. It was open, I imagine, for any persons at any time to call attention to the fact that the public were admitted to that Committee-room, that they were there every day, and that there was a table provided at which reporters sat—to the knowledge of every Member of the House present—every day to make a report of the proceedings. But that course not having been taken, I think that now to turn round on the newspapers and say to their printers—"We will summon you to the Bar of the House for reporting the proceedings of that Committee—although everybody in it knows perfectly well that the Committee was open, and that day by day the proceedings would be reported "—would that be conduct worthy of the honour—I may say of the honesty—of the House of Commons? What a position we should be placed in! The proceedings of the Committee have been reported for over three weeks, and at the end of that time you turn round and profess to be astonished that a breach of Privilege should have been committed which you knew was being committed every day. If reporting the proceedings of the Committee was a breach of Privilege, why was it not taken notice of on the first day of these proceedings by the Government, by the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government, or by the hon. Gentleman who has made this Motion? Everybody knew the character of the investigation, and that it was a matter in which the public were deeply interested, and I should like to know why notice has not been taken of it until this moment—and that it is now taken notice of as a breach of Privilege?—because, as I have already said, the breach of Privilege is not in the character of the publication, but in the publication itself. I entirely agree with the Member for the Denbigh Boroughs (Mr. Watkin Williams)—that these Motions we hear day after day are the fruits of that "lobbying" which is going on outside to prevent inquiry into frauds which are a disgrace to any commercial community. There is an influence, a pressure—there are social influences, commercial influences, and influences of every kind at work; the screw has been put on—the attack is made one day in one form, and another day in another form, but the object is always precisely the same. We have heard from the Home Secretary that the object of a Bill now before the House—the Artizans Dwellings Bill—is to do away with "rookeries." Well, Sir, there are rookeries of the working classes; but the object of this Committee is to do away with rookeries of the commercial class. They are in a sense the same class of people as those who frequent the other rookeries of whom the right hon. Gentleman spoke; they live by the same nameless arts; and it is for the purpose of pulling down these rookeries and clearing them out, and possibly of obtaining a more respectable population, of more decent habits—["Order!"]—that this Committee has been appointed—

I wish to point out that the hon. and learned Member is out of Order in discussing, on the present Motion, the object for which the Committee has been appointed.

I am sorry if I was alluding to matters that are not germane to the Motion; but I hope I may be excused if, from the warmth with which I have spoken, I did so, and I apologize to the House. Referring to the Motion immediately before the House, I do think that unless there is some distinction drawn we shall find ourselves in an embarrassing position. I object to the Motion because it is put on the ground of libel. A statement may be uttered in the course of the debates in this House which, if it were not privileged by the fact that it was spoken in the House of Commons, might be held to be a libel; but would it not, if uttered, be published in The Times and The Daily News next morning? Let us know before we accept this Motion, what is the difference between a transaction which takes place in this room and a transaction which takes place—in a room up stairs? Because, unless I am mistaken, as long as they are sitting there the Committee is invested with all the powers which belong to the House below for purposes of this character. If you choose to appoint a Secret Committee, appoint a Secret Committee. We have had Motions for Secret Committees—Motions which were not very favourably received by this House, and which I hope never will be—but if you appoint a Public Committee and admit the public and the reporters there, it appears to me to be a most extraordinary and unjustifiable proceeding to turn round on the newspapers and say—"You have done what you have no right to do; we will drag you to the Bar of this House for doing there that which we are extremely grateful to you for doing in this House." In these circumstances I, for one, if it be pressed to a division, will vote against the Motion of the hon. Member for Londonderry.

The hon. and learned Member opposite (Sir William Harcourt) has, I think, taken a somewhat strong liberty with respect to Members of this House. He has assumed that a Member of this House—my hon. Friend the Member for Londonderry—has taken the matter up as the result of the "lobbying" which he says is going on outside, while, so far as appears on the face of it, the question that has been raised is purely a question of Privilege. I can say for myself that, so far from being subject to such influences, I did not know even the subject of the Motion until I entered the House this evening. I must say that I do not think my hon. and learned Friend has a right to expect, as he seems to do, that Members of the Government should read all those proceedings which are reported in the newspapers, so as to see when breaches of Privilege have been committed. I come, therefore, to the discussion and the consideration of this question solely upon what is before us; and from what is before us, it is perfectly clear that there has been, technically at all events, a breach of the Privileges of this House in the publication in these two newspapers of this particular letter which was certainly not in evidence before the Committee.

I rise to Order. The right hon. Gentleman is transgressing the limits of fair debate in this matter, because he is making assertions which it is not in my power to answer. If the right hon. Gentleman is allowed to make statements as to what passed before the Committee, and as to what was before them as evidence, and what was not before them as evidence, it is only fair that I should be allowed to answer them. Therefore, I put it to the House that the right hon. Gentleman, in the course he is taking, is out of Order.

I wish to be in every respect correct. I am only referring to what has passed before the House and to what appears upon the face of the newspapers which have been read to us. According to what appears upon the face of those newspapers, this letter was not part of the evidence before the Committee; because it seems that the evidence taken before the Committee was taken upon oath, whereas this letter came by post to the Chairman of the Committee, and therefore did not form part of the evidence taken upon oath. What appears before the House is this—that a certain newspaper professing to report the proceedings before a Committee of this House—I dare say correctly enough—sets out a letter which it states was addressed to the Chairman of that Committee, which was not sanctioned by any oath nor by any witness, but appears to have reached him by post. That document contains statements alluding to an hon. Member of this House, and attributes to him conduct of a most disgraceful and unworthy character; and the hon. Member for Londonderry brings that document before us and complains that its publication in the newspapers is a breach of Privilege. It is not because we usually permit reports of the proceedings before our Committees to be published in the public Press that we should not take notice of technical breaches of Privilege when they involve abuses. We are not discussing the uses of this Committee, nor the benefit which the Press may confer upon the public by publishing the proceedings of this House or of its Committees; but our attention is directed to a particular circumstance—to the publication in a newspaper of a letter not in evidence before the Committee, but merely addressed to the Chairman by post. No answer has been given to the complaint of the hon. and learned Member against that publication. What was resolved by the House of Commons in 1837, when a similar question was brought before them? They resolved that, according to the undoubted Privileges of the House, the evidence taken by any Select Committee of the House, or any documents presented to such Committee, but not reported to the House, ought not to be published by any Member of such Committee, or by any other person. This letter, which was a document presented to a Committee of this House, and not having been reported to this House, has been published by other persons—namely, the printers of these two newspapers; and, therefore, if the hon. Gentleman thinks it of importance to press for the appearance of these two persons at the Bar, I do not see any injustice in supporting his Motion.

I wish to make only one remark upon this question. There appears to be some little misunderstanding as to the object which the hon. and learned Member for Londonderry has in view in bringing this matter before the House. It has been objected to this Motion that the information he seeks to obtain can be acquired by other means than those he proposes to adopt. Having listened attentively to this debate, I venture to think that every possible suggestion has been made and every possible facility has been offered for having that information laid before the House; but it has not been thought proper by those who might have afforded that information to give it to the House. Therefore, under these circumstances, it appears to me that the hon. Member for Londonderry has no other course to adopt than to persevere in the Motion he has brought before us, which is the only means by which he can substantiate his position and justify any further proceedings.

I only wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman who sits as Chairman of the Committee a question whether the letter to which reference has been made was part of the evidence taken before the Committee or not? If it was, there has been clearly, technically a breach of Privilege; but if it were not in evidence, then the proper remedy for the hon. Member for Gravesend is to bring an action for libel in a Court of Law—and in doing so he will not be committing a breach of the Privilege of this House. My vote will depend upon the answer which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of London gives to my question.

I understood from the observations of the right hon. Gen- at the head of the Government that he thought the House had proceeded far enough in passing the first Resolution. We re-affirmed by that Resolution, what has often been affirmed before, that the publication of the proceedings of this House and of its Committees by the Press is a breach of Privilege. The House has always had the power of suspending the customary publication of evidence taken before its Committees, and it has exercised that power on proper, and I am afraid, sometimes, on improper, occasions. We all know that Committees have the power of deciding, as to any particular Committee, whether their sittings shall be open to the public or not; and the whole country would be startled were this House to order that henceforth no proceedings of Committees should be made public. Therefore, we are brought to this conclusion—that we have decided that the House has a right of preventing the publication of proceedings before its Committees when it thinks fit. But it generally permits it. There appears to be a strong opinion that in this case publicity was both desirable and necessary. I do not wish to say anything disrespectful to the House, but to outsiders it would seem absurd if, having acknowledged this, you were to call the printers of these two newspapers to the Bar of the House and were to rebuke them for what they have done. The hon. Member for Londonderry and one or two other hon. Members on the opposite side of the House appear to have a double motive in bringing forward this question—one of more importance than the other—one being that a breach of Privilege has been committed and the other the vindication of the character of the hon. Member for Gravesend. I do not think it has been suggested that in deciding upon the first of the questions so raised by the hon. Member we ought to be in any way influenced by the second. If we are to bring the printers of these newspapers before the House, it must be simply for breach of Privilege. Many other letters which were before the Committee besides the particular letter in question have been published in the newspapers; but, although their publication involves an equal breach of Privilege, no complaint has been made respecting their appear- ing in the newspapers. I am sorry to say that there is a difficulty in ascertaining who has not been libelled before this Committee—everybody seems to have charged everybody else with misconduct; and I dare say that if we were to read the evidence of the hon. Member for Gravesend we should find that he had said very unpleasant things respecting the writer of this letter from Paris. Is it not, therefore, better for us to stop here and to keep as closely as we can to the question of the breach of Privilege without going into the character of the hon. Member for Gravesend? If the newspapers have violated our rule, which we constantly think it right and convenient to suspend, we shall do better to limit ourselves to the Resolution which we have already passed, and not proceed further and ask these two gentlemen to appear at the Bar of the House to be reprimanded. In making these observations, I believe I am speaking in accordance with the sentiments of the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Disraeli). If the hon. and learned Gentleman does divide the House, I shall certainly vote against his proposition.

I wish to say, in explanation, that the right hon. Gentleman opposite has quite misunderstood me. Inasmuch as the information that I think ought to be given to the House has not been given, I shall support the Motion of the hon. Member for Londonderry.

I have one word to say in vindication of myself. I must protest against the extraordinary suggestions that have been made by the hon. and learned Member for the Denbigh Boroughs and by the hon. and learned Member for Oxford, who have spoken in a way that induces me to think they have got foreign loans upon the brain. They do not appear to be able to deal with any one who does not go the full length with them without imputing to him indirect and unworthy motives. I say emphatically that as regards myself there is not a particle or grain of truth in the motives they have attributed to me, and the hon. and learned Member for Denbigh Boroughs who knows me had no right to impute them to me.

I know nothing of the hon. Member, and I only referred to what the hon. Member himself said to-night. I understood him to say that his object was not to punish these gentlemen, but to gain another object—namely, to obtain information from them when they appeared at the Bar, whether some Member of the Committee was not responsible for the publication complained of.

The hon. and learned Member appears to me to have gone beyond what I have stated to-night by imputing motives to me. The hon. and learned Member for Oxford, in his wonderful way of approaching questions of this sort, asks, why has not this question of the breach of the Privileges of the House in publishing the proceedings of its Committees been brought before us every day? I will tell him why. It is because we do not see libels published as part of the proceedings of those Committees every day. My complaint is that, under shelter of the proceedings before a Committee of this House, the hon. Member for Gravesend has been attacked and vilified; and what is unsatisfactory to my mind is that, although the right hon. Member for the University of London has been half-a-dozen times upon his legs, he has been silent on the real question before the House. I should have been happy to put myself into the bands of Her Majesty's Government and to have withdrawn my Motion had a scintilla of information been forthcoming as to the way in which this letter reached the newspapers. As the case stands, a Member of this House has been grossly libelled, and yet no sort of satisfaction can be obtained. On Friday last I gave Notice of a Question upon the very subject. I was told I was out of Order. But we had not then the information which has been vouchsafed to-day. It is not with a view to any ridiculous vindication of the privileges of this House by inflicting a punishment on these worthy gentlemen the printers of The Times and Daily News, but because it is the only way by which the House can get at the bottom of this matter, that I ask that these gentlemen be called upon to appear at that Bar; and when they are there I shall ask them, in accordance with the precedents on the Journals of the House, "From whom, if from anyone, did you receive that letter?" Not only do I intend to proceed to a division, but I venture to say there will be no mistake on the part of the public Press as to the attitude assumed by this House. It is not for the purpose of preventing the publication of reports or of stifling inquiry, or of bringing the present investigation to a hasty conclusion, but for the purpose of preventing those reports from being made the means of disseminating libels broadcast over the country, that I proceed to a division, and in doing so I thoroughly believe that I shall be supported by a large majority.

As a Member of the Committee, I decline, whether regular or irregular, to sit still under an imputation of having acted in an unworthy or mysterious manner. As to whether any one furnished copies of this letter to either of the newspapers named, I cannot say, because I do not in the least know. But this I can say—that the Committee Room has every day been crowded by Members of the House and by others, and under the circumstances it was only natural to suppose that what happened at the meetings of the Committee would be more or loss correctly communicated to the public. This being so, the same thing was done which has been done in connection with many other Committees of which I have been a Member—that is to say, reporters were tolerated in the room. I say "tolerated," because, of course, it was in the power of the Committee to exclude them. It was thought bettor that what occurred before the Committee should go forth correctly through the medium of the regular reporters than that it should go forth incorrectly through the medium of notes taken by other persons who might be in the room. So far with regard to the presence of reporters—which, I repeat, was nothing new, being a thing common at Committees. Then comes the question which has been asked—Was this letter part of the evidence before the Committee? It has always seemed to me that the course taken in appointing this Committee was a difficult and dangerous one. After its appointment it had to be determined whether it was necessary or expedient to examine witnesses on oath. For myself, I confess I was of opinion that it would be better not to do so; but it was decided to do it.

The right hon. Gentleman is not in Order in the remarks he is now making.

It is very difficult to discuss this matter without transgressing the strict rules regulating our proceedings. I may, however, add that this letter which has been referred to was tendered to the Committee as evidence, and I understood, and I still understand, that, in common with the rest of the evidence, it was taken down by the reporters who were in the room. It has been said that there was something underhand or mysterious, but I can only say that I do not believe it and that if there has been I know nothing of it. My object in rising was simply to clear myself from any imputation of having acted in a manner unworthy of a Member of this House, or of having, as a Member of the Committee, assented in any way to any course which could be considered irregular.

Without expressing any opinion as to the merits of this question, I wish to say a word as to the course of our proceedings. A Motion has been carried declaring that a breach of Privilege has been committed. It was open to any Member of the House to object to that Motion. There were various modes of setting it aside. The "Previous Question" might have been moved. For my part, I expected that that would be done. It was not done, and the House unanimously agreed to the Motion that there has been a breach of Privilege. By that decision the House has either gone too far or not far enough. There is no precedent for voting that a breach of Privilege has been committed and not following that up by calling the person who has committed the breach of Privilege to the Bar. Every Member must have known that if the first Motion passed unanimously it was only a matter of course that the second should pass unanimously. ["No!"] I regret very much that these printers should be called to the Bar; but, however much I may regret, it is too late now to object to it, and therefore, having voted for the first Motion, I must vote also for the present Motion.

Before we proceed to decide this question I wish to call the attention of the House to the fact that the Prime Minister in addressing the House, as I understood him, distinctly stated that if the information could be obtained in any other way he should not counsel the hon. Member for Londonderry to divide 'the House. He has now received that information from an authority which he must consider undoubted—from a Member of his own Ministry. I should like to know on what grounds he still thinks it necessary to call the printers to the Bar of this House.

, in rising to call attention to the Law relating to Slander; and to move, "That, in the opinion of this House, the Law relating to Slander requires amendment," said: Mr. Speaker, after the opinions given this afternoon by some of the ablest Members of this House in the debate which has just terminated, I hesitate to express, even, in the humblest manner, my views on the subject of slander. The point to which I wish to direct the attention of the House is simple, but important. I will not enter upon the broad question what is slander, and what is not. I use the generic term slander; but it is the specific form of slander known as libel on which I shall comment. I will not relate the views of eminent persons in the last, nor present century; I will not repeat the opinions of Lord Mansfield, nor describe the legislation of Lord Campbell. I shall be glad, Sir, to know from the Attorney General, whether the law which protects our property, in some smaller degree our persons, and in some degree our reputation, enables us at present to protect the memory of those who have been dear to us; whether by the present law the son is able to guard the memory of his father or mother, the husband of his wife, the wife of her husband? It would not become me to give a decided opinion as to the precise state of the law; especially as some of the wisest Judges that have sat upon the Bench have not been very clear on the subject. I am induced to think that the law is not sufficiently strong, from the fact that for 80 years no attempt has been made to proceed by indictment against one who has slandered the dead. The last case recorded is that of the King v. Topham. Topham was the editor of a newspaper called The World, and he published very gross libels against George, Earl Cowper, deceased. He was tried before Judge Buller and a jury, and was convicted. An appeal was made against the judgment, and Lord Kenyon as Chief Justice reversed the decision of the Court below. In delivering his judgment Lord Kenyon quoted Lord Mansfield—

"Where the act is in itself unlawful (as in this case) the proof of justification or excuse lies on the defendant; and in failure thereof the law implies a criminal intent."

Lord Kenyon also refers to Sir Edward Coke, who says that—

"Defamation of the dead is libellous as stirring up the family to revenge, and to break the peace."

He (Lord Kenyon) reverses the judgment of the Court below, because, not that the libel did not tend to a breach of the peace, but that it was not so stated in the indictment. This point is most important; for the decision of Lord Kenyon has been quoted as if he had reversed the judgment, because the libel did not tend to a breach of the peace. No attempt has been made, I believe, since that date, 1791, to remedy the wrong done to a dead person by indictment. Lord Kenyon followed up his decision with these words—

"To hold that, even after ages are passed, the conduct of bad men cannot be contrasted with good, would be to exclude the best part of history."

This, Sir, seems to me a judicial truism; and is not to the point; for it cannot be applied to the case of a man who has recently died. Sir Edward Coke, to whom Lord Kenyon referred, had tried a case of a man, who certainly bolder than most persons, had dared to libel two Archbishops of Canterbury at once. Sir Edward Coke stated that, if a libel was made against a public or private person, it was punishable if the person might be dead at the time of making the libel, because it stirred up the relatives of the person libelled to a breach of the peace; but in the case tried before him (Sir Edward Coke) it is doubtful whether the person convicted was so convicted for the libel on the Archbishop deceased or the living Archbishop, so that whatever Sir Edward Coke's opinion may be worth, and, as we know, he was most eminent as a lawyer, it cannot be said that he, by this decision, made the point clear. I believe, Sir, that the law of libel might be without difficulty extended to the defamation of the dead as well as of the living; either by declaring the present law to have such operation; or by a fresh enactment. I make this suggestion at a time when our public men cannot be accused of too great sensitiveness to criticism. If ever there was a time when men were freely criticized it has been in the generation in which we live. What must be the sensation of a statesman on taking up an illustrated periodical week after week for 20 years, to see himself hebdomadally depicted in some grotesque attitude, doing something he has never done, from some motive he has never thought of, I know not. It may be that, like the slave in the Capitol, these pictures whisper in his ear "Thou art mortal." In these days not only do we live in glass houses, but under a magnifying glass of the most powerful sort. One of the most remarkable features of the newspaper intelligence of the present day is the London correspondent of the provincial Press. This wonderful and mysterious being is evidently present at Cabinet Councils, and dines with an Archbishop or a Chief Justice at least once a-week. He not only tells us what we have done, but informs us of what we are going to do. I venture to read to the House a short specimen which I happened to see lately, "The appearance of the right honourable gentleman is that of a market-gardener out for a Sunday walk." The writer is perfectly impartial in his criticisms, and goes from side to side of this House. "Colonel So-and-so's clothes were evidently made for somebody else." While "Sir Some body-o'-something's perennial pair of trousers would, if unstitched, suffice for the mainsail of a moderate-sized yacht." At the same time, we must admit that our generation has seen a great change for the better from the ferocious libels, pictorial and literary, of 40 years ago. Since the price of newspapers has been lowered a much better tone has pervaded public prints—I do not say post hoc propter hoc—but there can be no doubt that great good feeling, and good humour are shown in this respect. Most of us have had our biography written. We have not to wait until we go where we must all go sooner or later; but even in the tempting circumstances of a recent Parliamentary Election, neither ill-humour nor unfairness in the description given of us is to be detected when we enter this House; but there is one class of publication which has shown of late a great tendency to crop up; books written by men who vent their spleen against those whom they do not like; leaving behind them calumny and slander, to overhang either their victims, or their victims' children. These books inflict a great hardship and wrong. The memory of the best, as well as the worst of men is hot spared. Men of the highest honour in private life and of conspicuous public virtue, once in their graves, are held up to their relatives and friends and to mankind in general as not honest, and not honourable. You are told in these books that the man whom you have for long years respected and admired was a worthless being. These writers say to you: "You think that statesman was honest, and that, misinterpreted during his life-time, he would be done justice to at his death: you are mistaken; you are ignorant; you are a fool; you thought the man a gentleman; I tell you he was a rogue! You think that his public life, his career were influenced by high minded self-denial! Believe nothing of the sort; he was selfish from first to last. You think that his private life was pure? Humbug! It was the contrary. I've bribed his valet, and I ought to know." Now this is no exaggerated description of the sort of book that appears periodically in English society. I will quote a case that has been sent to me since the Notice of this Motion appeared. A particular libel was published in a book, which I will not advertize by giving its name; suffice it to say that it was written by a wandering physician; a man who travelled about from watering place to watering place on the Continent; and instructed people as to their specific requirements. The person slandered was Captain Burdett, an officer of considerable distinction in His Majesty's Navy. It appears from authentic documents at the Admiralty that he was a man of high character, and excellent conduct. In the book to which I allude he is described as having behaved in a most discreditable manner, and been dismissed from the Navy with disgrace. There is no truth in these libels. Captain Burdett commanded some of the largest ships in the Navy, and died bearing a very high character from all those whom he had commanded, and from all those under whom he had served. It may have occurred Sir, to some Members of this House that I should allude to a book recently published. I will not mention its precise name, for that might add to the sale to the extent of some few copies, but every Member will know the book to which I allude. It was written by a person eminent, I mean, for the office which he filled; it was not published in his life-time, when his slanders might have been met and confuted. It was left behind him at his death; and published by another. It is a dull and dirty book; compiled by Malice, published by Avarice, edited by Vulgarity. A more profligate book never came from any publisher. Not only is it shown by this book that Mr. Greville had broken, and frequently, the solemn oath taken three times on appointment to the service of the Sovereigns whom he boasts on the title page to have served; but he had set at nought the higher law, the religion of society, the law of honour. He was—

"Un héros qui n'est point esclave de sa foi."

There is nothing of Lazarus about this publication; it is Dives all over: literally purple and fine linen. On the outside is an apologetic motto: "Vix ea nostra voco;" and above is a Phœnix, seemingly out of health; a moulting Phoenix. The bird appears to be engaged in the very act of dirtying its own nest. "Nihil tetigit quod non fædavit." The most conspicuous objects of Mr. Greville's slanders are the monarchs whom he seems vain to have served as Clerk of the Council, George IV. and William IV. No doubt as regards the first, an old gentleman in a brown wig, and vain of his leg, was a fair subject for satire. Hone and Moore were the persons employed to write him down. Hone was paid; Moore was petted. We have all read of

"The Dandy of sixty who bows with a grace;

And has taste in Coats, Collars, Cuirasses, and Lace."

There are not many people who have taste in anything; and George IV. had excellent taste in matters of more importance than these. We are indebted to his fine perception of the beautiful for the handsome coins of Pistrucci, whom George IV. brought to this country. The dragon sovereigns of this artist are amongst the most classic coins that the world has seen; and have been lately re-issued in large numbers from the Mint. Waterloo Bridge is a noble monument of the encouragement given to art by George IV.; and many of the pictures and works of Art in the Royal Palaces were collected by him. Lord Byron condescended to libel the man who had, as he frequently admits in his letters, treated him with invariable courtesy, kindness, and consideration. George IV., when Prince Regent, wishing to pay honour to the memory of Charles I., beheaded, buried, and forgotten, discovered in the neighbourhood of Charles's coffin the body of Henry VIII. Lord Byron wrote eight of his best lines on this discovery—

"Famed for contemptuous breach of sacred ties,

By headless Charles see heartless Henry lies;

Between them stands another sceptred thing;

it moves; it reigns; in all but name a King:

Charles to his country, Henry to his wife;

In him the double tyrant starts to life:

Oh! what can tombs avail, since they disgorge

The blood, and dust of both to make a George!"

Now we know this to have been all nonsense; and no one knew it better than Lord Byron himself. If George IV. was a tyrant to his country, he was the sort of tyrant that we see at Christmas; a Pantomime tyrant; one who, if he has a difficulty with his Prime Minister, knocks him on the head with a sceptre not altogether unlike yonder mace: and as regards being a tyrant to his wife; when they met, after an absence of 25 years, the lady certainly got the best of it. It is true that George IV., when far advanced in years, was in the habit of associating with two elderly persons of the opposite sex; the first of them re-voltingly ugly, the second preposterously fat; but in the latter case not only the lady's husband, but her son and daughter lived with the King in a very small house in Windsor Forest; so that even the pure and sensitive mind of Mr. Greville must admit that under such circumstances impropriety was very difficult, if not impossible. The King had no family circle; his wife was away, his daughter dead; and he must associate with some one. "Fame," as a brilliant writer has said, "is a thing of Party," and the fact was, that George IV. changed his political opinions, or at least the expression of his political views; and the whole tribe of slanderers was at once let loose upon him. As regards King William, whom Mr. Greville attempts to blacken without producing one fact to support his calumny, one would have thought that the jovial sailor-monarch, who, after 65 years of comparative obscurity, unexpectedly came to the Throne, would have escaped the censure of even so great a moralist as the author of this book. The ancedotes relating to this King are without exception thoroughly spoilt. Mr. Greville was not only a malicious man, but he must have been a dull one; and he contrived to remove the point from almost every story he tells. He relates that King William, in order to procure personal liberty for himself, did what Louis Philippe invariably did, and what I believe the Emperor of Russia does to this day; he thought that he could accustom the people, by walking alone, to his presence; and that in a few weeks he would not be molested by a crowd in the streets of London. Mr. Greville tolls us that King William walked up St. James's Street; but he omits a story that I have known all my life; which I belive to be absolutely true; and which is very characteristic of the King. Entering Hoby's shop, which was then on the left side of St. James's Street going up, His Majesty ordered a pair of boots; the assistant who was in the shop did not know the King by sight, and said—"I beg your pardon, Sir, I have forgotten your name." William IV. replied—"Well, I am the King; I am down in your books as Duke of Clarence." That story shows a simple mind, and a very unaffected disposition; but there is one trait which I have always thought redounds very much to the credit of King William, and to his thoughtful consideration of others. When he was told a fact as disagreeable to monarchs as to the rest of mankind, that he must die; and learned that—

"Death lays his icy hands on Kings,"

one of his first questions was—

"Shall I live over the 18th of June? I should be very sorry for the Duke of Wellington's dinners to he interrupted: the chain has never yet been broken since Waterloo, and I hope that I shall live long enough to enable the Duke to have his dinner on that day."

Now, Sir, if over a true-hearted and chivalrous gentleman spoke, he spoke when he said those words; and cynicism itself can hardly point with a more un relenting finger than when it indicates MR. Greville attributing the persistence with which King William, on mounting the Throne, sought out every old friend to promote him, to obvious madness. There is one slander in this book, and one of the worst, not of the dead but of the living; a lady who is still alive, the widow of a gallant soldier; the mother of a most gallant soldier, who having drawn the attention of the judicial au thorities to a half-witted forger is in this book——

Mr. Speaker, I rise to Order. The Motion upon the Paper is that the law of slander should be amended. I wish to ask whether the hon. Baronet is speaking to the Question?

I understand the hon. Baronet to be illustrating his arguments. I feel sure that I can trust to his discretion not to wander too far from the matter of debate.

Sir, I will not offend again. I was endeavouring to enliven a somewhat dry subject. I will read to the House the law on this subject of Germany and of Prance. By the Code of Law establishd in Germany, in 1870, section 189—

"Whoever slanders the memory of a person deceased, by stating a fact that would have lowered the deceased in public esteem if stated in his lifetime, shall be punished with imprisonment not exceeding six months; if with extenuating circumstances, a fine may be adjudged."

The prosecution can only be instituted by the parents, the children, or the wife of the deceased. In France it has been settled by the Court of Cassation, the highest tribunal in the country, by two decisions, one on the 24th of March, 1860, and the other on the 23rd of March, 1866, that the 13th Article of Law of the 17th of May, 1819, applies to calumny on the dead as well as on the living. The heirs of the deceased, or any one of them, can take action. The penalty, on conviction for the crime of defamation of the dead, is by the Law of the 17th of May, 1819, imprisonment for not more than a year; or a fine of not more than 2,000 francs, or both. Now, Sir, I am the last person in this House, or out of it, to wish to interfere with due and wholesome publicity. I hope never to see the time when the affairs of State are conducted under the momentary impulse of fretful popularity: the ignorance of the present I despise; but I love the deep-thinking, far-seeing public opinion, the result of observation and of experience. It is this which has made our institutions so great and so sound. It is not the perfection of the machanism that enables statesmen to conduct the government of this country; it is the oil of good sense that lubricates the machine; it is the sublime, I had almost said divine, give and take, which makes this Empire great and free. I would do nothing to check publicity. I would do nothing to prevent this public opinion bringing its admirable influence to bear upon public affairs. I believe that the alteration in the law which I suggest, after much thought, might be made without difficulty, certainly without clamour. Considering that the law is now imperfect, I sincerely hope that the Law Officers of the Crown may be able to take my view of the matter. I thank the House for the patience and good humour with which they have listened to me; and I have the honour to move the Resolution which stands on the Paper in my name.

said, that while he had listened with great pleasure to the amusing speech of the hon. and gallant Baronet, he was unable to give his assent to the Resolution which he proposed. The English law had always recognized that there might be slander of the memory of the dead as well as of the living. In an old legal work of authority, Hawkins's Pleas of the Crown, it was laid down that a libel was a malicious defamation, in printing or writing, tending to blacken either the memory of the dead or the reputation of the living. That, he believed, represented the real state of the law, and it was illustrated by the judgment of Lord Kenyon, in the case to which his hon. and gallant Friend had referred, and which had reference to a libel on the memory of Lord Cowper. Lord Kenyon then stated that such a publication might be made fairly and honestly; but, whether made sooner or later, if it were done with a malevolent purpose, to vilify the memory of a deceased person, and with a view to injure his posterity as in the case of R. v. Critchley, then it came within the rule stated by Hawkins, and was illegal, as being done with a view to break the peace. The indictment, however, in the case decided by Lord Kenyon, contained no allegation that the libel tended to lead to a breach of the peace, and judgment was arrested on that account; but there was nothing in the judgment of Lord Kenyon to indicate that an indictment would not lie in such a case, when the circumstances warranted it, and the law, he ventured to say, remained the same up to the present time. There could, however, be no doubt that the practice of preferring indictments with respect to slanders on the dead had fallen into desuetude, and it seemed to be the general feeling of the country that it was undesirable to prosecute proceedings of that character. It was, at the same time, his opinion that if ever a case should arise in which it should be deemed expedient to prefer an indictment in respect of slander upon the memory of the dead the present law would be found sufficient for the purpose. He thought it would, under these circumstances, be undesirable to make any alteration in it.

believed that the present tendency of our Courts was to render the law of libel more stringent than it used to be, and until prosecutions for slanders such as those of which the hon. and gallant Member complained were instituted, and it was found that the law in such cases was insufficient, the House would, he thought, do wrong further to restrict publication. Increased restrictions might operate to destroy the most useful of all classes of publications—that of recent history.

said, he thought it was perfectly clear that the hon. and gallant Member had brought forward his Motion for the purpose not of illustrating the defects in the law of slander, but rather the Greville Memoirs. No one objected to the Memoirs of Saint Simon, yet Saint Simon dealt much more hardly with his contemporaries than Mr. Greville had done. Again, there was the Diary of Sir Nathaniel Wraxall, which gave a great deal of information about the politicians of his time. The only question was as to the period at which such memoirs should be published. He believed that Mr. Greville left an absolute discretion to those to whom his Memoirs were left as to the period of publication. If there had been an unduly early publication, therefore, Mr. Greville stood entirely acquitted of blame, and no soreness would have been caused if the period of publication had been postponed. He had observed that men were very sensitive as to what was said of their fathers and mothers who were very indifferent about the reputation of their grandmothers. If a wise discretion had been exercised as to the publication of the Greville Memoirs he believed that they would be a valuable contribution to the history of the time, and no offence would have been given to the feelings of individuals.

, in reply, said: The hon. Member for Maldon (Mr. Sandford) is mistaken in supposing that there were no objections taken to Wraxall's Memoirs, when they were published. I must be permitted, Sir, to allude to a case which I omitted in my opening speech, and which shows a very great grievance on the part of an excellent lady now alive. Her late husband, after a most brilliant career in this House, and filling the highest law office of those who address you, rose to the highest position in "another place;" a man of great intellect and great eloquence; a man who, at 90 years of age, knew well how—

"The applause of listening Senates to command;"

one whom I remember waiting for many hours to hear speak on a great subject. The husband of this lady—and everybody in the House knows to whom I allude—is foully slandered in this pernicious book. I have heard, since I gave the Notice of this Motion, that it was the wish of the lady in question to indict the persons who have brought these slanders before the public; and she was told, so I am informed, that the law afforded her no redress. The law at present declares that the plaintiff must show malice on the part of the defendant; or that the publication of the libel tends to a breach of the peace. I wish to extend it to cases, as in this instance, where the slander has been published for the sole and simple purpose of obtaining money.

wished to state that neither the relatives nor the executors of Mr. Greville had any pecuniary interest whatever in the publication of his Memoirs. They fell, by a species of gift, into the hands of the publishers. The relatives had nothing to do with the publication.

, in rising to move—

"That in consequence of a Conference having been held at Brussels in 1874 on International Law, and the proposed renewal of the Conference at St. Petersburg this year, a favourable opportunity is afforded to the Country of withdrawing from the Declaration of Paris of 1856, and thus maintaining our maritime rights, so essential to the power, prosperity, and independence of the Empire,"

said, that this question, which was one of the greatest possible importance, was last brought before the House by the hon. Member for Whitehaven (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck), and he regretted that the circumstances of his hon. Friend's official position precluded him from recurring to the subject. It had previously been brought before the House in 1866 and 1867. The general feeling of the House then was in favour of withdrawing from the Declaration of Paris, yet, as no particular question of International Law was then before Europe, it was not thought desirable that the House should come to any Re-solution against the Declaration of Paris. Last year a Conference on International Law was held at Brussels, and it was proposed by the Russian Government to hold another Conference at St. Petersburg this year. He put it to the House that now or never—when attention was directed to questions of International Law—was the time for the House to say whether the country should be bound for ever by the Declaration of Paris of 1856. The Brussels Conference was convened with the professed object of ameliorating the condition of prisoners of war. The Conference, however, went further, and considered the whole question of military warfare by land. There was, however, a secret object in that Conference, and Lord Derby, with great sagacity, had succeeded in discovering what that object was. The real object was to entangle this country again into a confirmation of the Declaration of Paris. It was perfectly apparent in all the documents that had been published. Lord Derby, in his first despatch to Major General Sir Alfred Horsford, appointing him British Representative at the Conference, said—

"The Powers must give the most positive assurance that the delegates shall not entertain in any shape, directly or indirectly, anything relating to maritime operations or naval warfare."

And again—

"It will be your duty to guard carefully against being led into any discussions which may affect, however remotely, the subject of maritime warfare."

In the last despatch of Prince Gortcha-koff, in reply to Lord Derby's declining to recognize any future Conference, the Russian Minister, after saying that there did not exist, strictly speaking, any positive International Law, proceeded to say—

"In the last century the rights of maritime neutrality had no legal existence until the Empress Catherine II. had proclaimed them and made them the object of Treaties with other Governments. England for a long time contested these rights as being derogatory to existing laws and customs. At the present time they are generally admitted, but have the force of obligatory laws only by the Treaties that sanction them."

And in conclusion of the despatch—

"If the English Government states that it will keep to the principles of International Law, in accordance with which its acts have been hitherto regulated, and that it will impose the same obligation on its Allies, it would have been desirable that its meaning should have been rendered complete by stating what these principles are."

He proposed that the House of Commons should say to-night what were those principles of International Law. He would not complain of the atrocities and calamities of war, for they were the best safeguards for the preservation of peace. You could not make war with kid gloves and rose-water. He was astonished to hear what beautiful humanitarian theories were put forward at Brussels; but Peace Congresses were not of modern origin. In one of Æsop's fables a Peace Congress of animals was held, of bears and wolves and bulls, to discuss the laws of war. The wolves and bears proposed that the only weapon used for fighting should be the teeth. The bulls, however, replied—"You may do what you please, but nature has given us two horns, and we intend to use them." The two horns of England and of English right and security were the power of issuing letters of marque and the right of search. What was that right? From the earliest days of England's greatness and maritime power the right had been claimed and exercised of seizing an enemy's goods in whatever ship they might be, and whether under a neutral or any other flag. That right among ourselves had never been questioned. Lord Mansfield, when appealed to by the Government of the day, distinctly laid down the following principles:—(1) The goods of an enemy on board the ships of a friend might be taken; (2) The lawful goods of a friend on board the ships of an enemy ought to be restored; and (3) Contraband goods going to an enemy, although the property of a friend, might be taken as prize. The principle was held by the English Government of that day that they would not waive the right of seizing an enemy's goods under whatever flag they might be found. The next occasion on which this principle was questioned was in 1780, when the famous Armed Neutrality was formed by Russia; but England declined to give way, and the whole question was again settled for the time being. In 1801 there was again an Armed Confederacy, and by an Order in Council we laid an embargo upon the property of each of the countries forming that league. Letters of marque were issued, and in six months the whole confederacy was at an end. Vast importance had always been attached to this great maritime question. He would not go back so far as Vattel or the other great authorities of days long past, but would quote a few of the authorities of later times on the subject. Lord Eldon, for instance, held that the right of searching neutral vessels originated in the rights of nature, and no Convention or Treaty could destroy the right. The opinion of Lord Stowell was conveyed in the following words:—

"A war and a commercial peace is a state of things not yet seen in the world; there is no such thing as a war for arms and a peace for commerce; and the right of visiting and searching merchantmen on the high seas, whatever he the cargoes, whatever the destination, is an incontestable right of the lawfully commissioned cruisers of a belligerent State."

Lord Nelson, again, expressed not only the opinion of his own time, but foreshadowed the views of the great naval officers of the present day, when in the House of Lords, in 1801, he described the proposition that free ships should make free goods as—

"A proposition so monstrous in itself, so contrary to the Law of Nations, so injurious to the maritime interests of this country, that, if it had been persisted in, we ought not to have concluded the war with those Powers while a single man, a single shilling, or even a single drop of blood remained in the country."—[Parl. History, xxxvi. 262.]

Napoleon, again, speaking on the same question, said—

"The greatest blow that could he given to England would be to compel her to give up her maritime rights."

Such was the state of opinion in England down to the year 1854, when, as we were drifting into a war with Russia, by what was to him a perfectly inconceivable act on the part of a public man, the following Order in Council was issued:—

"In order to preserve the commerce of neutrals from all unnecessary destruction, Her Majesty consents to suspend a portion of the belligerent rights that belong to her by the Law of Nations; Her Majesty will suspend the right of seizing enemy's property on hoard neutral vessels unless contraband of war."

The result of this extraordinary Order was to afford perfect safety to Russian commerce which sailed under neutral flags. Coming on to 1856, they found occurring an event which was not to be paralleled in the diplomatic and political annals of England. Representatives of the Great Powers—Russia, France, and Austria—assembled in Paris to conclude a Treaty of Peace. The Treaty was signed, and the powers of the Ambassadors were at an end, when Count Walewski proposed to the Congress to conclude its work by a declaration which would constitute a remarkable advance in International Law, and which would be received by the whole world with a sentiment of lively gratitude. It would, he said, be truly worthy of the Congress of Paris to lay down the basis of an uniform maritime law in time of war as regarded neutrals. The four following principles would completely effect that object:—(1) The abolition of privateering; (2) The neutral flag covers enemy's goods, except contraband of war; (3) Neutral goods, except contraband of war, are not liable to capture even under an enemy's flag; and (4) Blockades are not binding except in so far as they are effective. The Earl of Clarendon observed that, like France, England, at the commencement of the war, sought by every means to mitigate its effects, and that with this view she renounced, for the benefit of neutrals, during the struggle which had then come to an end, principles which up to that time she had invariably maintained. If the whole of the Congress were to adopt the proposition of Count Walewski, it should be well understood that it would only be binding in regard to the Powers who might accede to it, and that it could not be appealed to by Governments who might refuse their accession. So utterly unjustified were the Congress in discussing this question, that Count Orloff observed that the powers with which he was furnished having for their sole object the restoration of peace, he did not consider himself authorized to take part in a discussion which his instructions had not provided for. On the same occasion Count Buol declared that he appreciated the spirit and beauty of the principles of maritime law which Count Walewski had proposed for adoption; but that, not being authorized by his instructions to express an opinion upon a matter of such importance, he must, for the time, confine himself to announcing to the Congress that he was prepared to request the orders of his Sovereign. All this was not embodied in the Treaty, but it appeared in the Parliamentary Paper as an annex to the 23rd Protocol. Now, the Plenipotentiaries had no power to discuss such a question as this. They took upon themselves to give away the whole great maritime rights of this country. It never was ratified by Parliament, and it never had received the consent of the Sovereigns. Was this country bound by such a Treaty as that? In fact, it was not a Treaty at all, but merely a dictation of Count Walewski, that was assented to in an evil moment of weak philanthropy by the late Lord Clarendon. He should not quote opinions on this question which had been expressed by any politicians who were now respon- sible for the foreign policy of this country; but he should like to lay before the House the opinion of Earl Russell concerning it. In 1857 the noble Earl said—

"The rules—'Free bottoms make free goods,' and 'The goods of a belligerent are safe in neutral vessels, and the goods of a neutral safe in belligerent vessels,' have always been regarded as injurious to the interests of maritime countries, and especially to the maritime power of England.…. I hope no Minister of Great Britain will set his seal to a treaty containing any stipulations of this kind without the most cautious deliberation."—[3 Hansard, cxliv. 2084–6.]

The late Earl of Derby said, in 1856, that—

"Whatever losses Russia may have suffered by this war, whatever embarrassments she may-have experienced, I hesitate not to say that they are more than compensated by the adoption of that one Article."—[3 Hansard, cxlii. 537.]

What said Mr. Stuart Mill?—

"Sir, I venture to call the renunciation of the right of seizing enemy's property at sea a national blunder.…. Unless by resuming our natural and indispensable weapon we place ourselves again on an equality with our possible enemies, we shall be burthened with these enormous establishments and those onerous budgets for a permanency, and, in spite of it all, we shall be for ever in danger, for ever in alarm, cowed before any Power or combination of Powers capable of invading any part of our widely-spread possessions. …. Happily, the blunder is not an irretrievable one. The Declaration of 1856 is not a Treaty. It has never been ratified. The authority on which it was entered was but the private letter of a minister.…. How war is to be humanized by shooting at men's bodies instead of taking their property, I confess surprises me."—[3 Hansard, clxxxix. 878–882.]

MR. Cobden said—

"The Congress declared that the neutral flag covered enemy's goods. This resolution reverses the most venerated judgments of our Admiralty Courts, and for the first time imparts the force of maritime law to principles which were resisted by England against the world in arms until the close of 1815. The practical effect would be in case of war with a naval Power to transfer the trade of even our own ports to the neutral Powers."

There was only one other authority he should like to quote, and it was that of Mr. Mitchell, his former Colleague, who said—

"I believe there is no man acquainted with Russia, who would not be of opinion that the greatest means of coercion that could be used against Russia would be the closing of her ports and the stopping of her export trade; and that the best means of hostility against Russia at the beginning of the war would have been to take steps to stop the whole of the export trade of that country."

The authorities he had quoted were most eminent men on both sides of the House. He could refer to several other men in support of his view, but to none more important than these. This was not a Party question. It was a question concerning the interests and the maritime greatness of this country. If we accepted the principle that a neutral flag covered enemy's property all the neutral countries would take possession of our place, and the name that Napoleon gave to our Volunteers of the sea in time of war—namely, les loups de mer—would be swept away. If we were to have Volunteers for the defence of our shores, we were equally justified in making use of our great commercial marine in case of war to defend this country. There were various points of view from which the question might be argued. There was the point of view—free ships; then there was another point—that the sea was the highway of all countries, and that in the case even of a ship carrying contraband of war she should not be searched, but he could not conceive anything more fatal—he might almost say, more ridiculous—than such an idea as that. There were thousands of persons who adopted the principle of Silent leges inter arma, and who thought that the Declaration of Peace was nothing—was not, in fact, to be taken into consideration in time of war. That, however, was not an honourable way of looking at the question. Do not let us follow the bad example of 1870 in this matter, when a Treaty was torn up and declared to be so much waste paper. There were those also who said that as we did not intend to interfere with foreign politics, free ships in time of war would be of the greatest possible advantage to us; but then it would be necessary that we should carry-out a selfish isolated policy, and we might as well have no Army and no Navy at all. It had been well said that England did not so much support the right of search as the right of search supported England. The extent and variety of our commerce were so great that we, more than any other nation, were bound over to keep the peace of Europe, but for that very reason we ought to have at our command every means of hostility in case we were dragged into war. No fortifications, no torpedoes, no ironclads, no increase of our Army or Navy, could give us the power that we should derive from the right of seizing enemy's goods at sea in time of war. He denied that we might be called upon by military Powers to discuss that right. We were a great maritime Power. Of all the commercial Navies of the world put together, what was the proportion of ships which belonged to England? 37 per cent. And of the steam navies of the world 58 per cent of the steamers belonged to England. Surely that placed us in an exceptional position. If we armed those great ocean steamers in case of war, and allowed them to defend themselves, what a force we should have. He knew that Lord Clarendon said he was going to inaugurate an era of peace. That prophesy was not fulfilled at all. He (Mr. Baillie Cochrane) was not there to prophesy disaster, but he could not be blind to facts. Twenty years ago the Russian frontier was 1,000 miles from our Indian possessions; now it was not much more than 80; and that was owing to the apathy with which we had viewed these matters. He contended that unless we were to" adopt for ever a principle of selfish isolation, we should do everything to maintain the maritime greatness of this country. We had heard a great deal—and he thought we had heard too much—about the "silver streak" that protected us. As long as we insisted on having our maritime rights we should have command of the seas of the world. As Lord Nelson said—

"We should lose our last shilling and the last drop of Mood of our last man sooner than give up those maritime rights."

In 1870 Prince Gortchakoff wrote to Count Brunow—

"The Emperor commands you to declare that His Imperial Majesty cannot any longer he hound by the stipulations of the Treaty of Paris, as they restrict His Majesty's rights in the Black Sea."

If, then, he (Mr. Baillie Cochrane) should be told that he was doing wrong in proposing that this country should withdraw from the Declaration of Paris, his reply would be that the Treaty of Paris was at an end when the Emperor of Russia disregarded the greatest stipulation in it, and for the insertion of which stipulation we had expended a great deal of money and blood. He would urge upon the House, by their vote that evening, to let foreign Governments know that we were determined to go back to the England of long ago; and by exercising to the fullest extent when occasion should require their maritime rights to do everything in their power to maintain the dignity and independence of the Empire. The hon. Gentleman concluded by moving his Resolution.

, in seconding the Motion, thanked his hon. Friend, to whom he thought the House and the country were indebted for having brought forward this important question at such a favourable opportunity. There was at present peace upon the Continent, and we could therefore withdraw with honour from engagements which had never been ratified by the Queen, sanctioned by Parliament, or approved of by the people. His hon. Friend had so eloquently explained that portion of the subject, and had given so many quotations from the speeches of eminent men and high authorities, that he would not weary the House by going over the same ground. It had been said that in case of war this was a Declaration which would be at once rescinded; and, therefore, its continuance placed England in a position which she ought not to occupy. For his part, he hated and detested war, and he might be asked why then did he support the Motion? His object in doing so was that war might be made as disagreeable as possible, so that it might become hateful in the eyes of all civilized nations, who would thus be induced to recoil from it. He was aware that the proposition before the House would not be pleasant to the Representatives of those nations who took part in the Declaration agreed to at Paris; but they were not there to make things pleasant, but rather to make war odious. It ought to be thoroughly understood by other nations that England was prepared to exercise in time of war her great maritime power in her own defence, and that, he thought, was one of the things which would prevent us drifting into war. He could not but remember the great amount of sympathy which had been exhibited in this country for the sick and wounded during the Franco-German War, and the large fund which had been raised for their relief. He must say he regretted that he had contributed to that fund, for he now believed that it was false philanthropy to do so. The horrors war entailed ought to he forced upon the attention of the nations that went to war, and it ought to be shown them that it was as much their duty to provide food and medicine for their soldiers, as it was to provide powder and shot for them to fight with. With respect to the question of the neutral flag, Mr. Pitt said in that House, in the face of a powerful Opposition—

"That although he was anxious for peace, yet upon the question of the neutral flag covering the cargo of the enemy, sooner than give it up he would wind it round him and find his glory in his grave."

On the 22nd of May, 1856, Lord Colchester brought forward a Motion in the House of Lords to the effect that the right to capture an enemy's goods on board a neutral vessel was an inherent right, the abandonment of which was a serious injury to our naval power; and the late Lord Derby declared that "in signing that Declaration"—that of Paris—"you have sacrificed the maritime greatness of England on the shrine of Russia"—[3 Hansard, cxlii. 587]—while Lord Hardwicke said that "It had struck down the maritime power of England."—[Ibid. 508.] And what said Lord Clarendon himself on that occasion? He intimated that he had not acted within the strict limits of his attributions, by which he supposed the noble Earl meant his instructions. He would remind the House that the United States had declared that in the event of war they would not renounce the use of their Mercantile Marine. Under such circumstances, what position would we be in if we were at war with the United States or with any country of which the United States was an ally? Surely England would not allow herself to be placed at so great and serious a disadvantage? On such a subject the House ought to take a decided view, and express themselves as those who had gone before them had done—in a manner that could not be mistaken. The opinion expressed by Mr. John Stuart Mill on this question had been already quoted by his hon. Friend, and in that patriotic opinion he fully concurred. The right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government had expressed himself strongly on this subject. He said—

"I believe it (the Declaration of Paris) to have been a most impolitic step, calculated to cripple the Powers of this country.… we must emancipate ourselves from its fatal trammels in a regular manner."—[3 Mansard, ccv. 1497–8.]

There could not, then, be a more regular or constitutional manner of doing so than by means of the action of Parliament. It having been declared that by the declaration in the Treaty of Paris we had given up the cardinal principle of our maritime power, and that in consequence of that Treaty never having been ratified by Parliament or by the Queen it was not binding upon us, he thought the present moment, when peace was universal, was the best that could be selected for repudiating our obligations under it. He would further suggest that Her Majesty's Government should take this opportunity of sweeping away many other obsolete Treaties which trammelled us, and which at some future date might be productive of inconvenience if not of danger to this country.

assured the hon. Member for the Isle of "Wight (Mr. B. Cochrane) that it was not from any underrating of the importance of the subject, or from any desire to restrict the maritime force which this country could command in time of war, that he rose to move the Previous Question. It had seemed to him from the first that the Resolution which had just been submitted was extremely inopportune—that there was no practical reason for bringing it forward, and this impression had been fully confirmed by the speech of the hon. Member. The substance of the charge brought against the Declaration of Paris appeared to be that it involved an apostacy from principles which had hitherto governed the policy of this country. He believed it could be shown conclusively by a reference to the acts of English statesmen of undoubted patriotism that that argument was not founded in fact. The Lord Protector Cromwell, who in a peculiar degree sought to establish British ascendency at sea, put his hand to a Treaty by which the principle of a neutral flag covering an enemy's goods was recognized. Sir William Temple, no mean exponent of British feeling, took part in carrying out a similar policy. The principle was acknowledged in the Treaty of Utrecht, and in 1786 it was embodied by Mr. Pitt in a celebrated Treaty of Commerce. In one respect the Declaration of Paris was an improvement on preceding instruments, for it did not renew a preferential bonus in favour of French shipping which had previously been allowed. On no occasion, he would observe, was the Declaration of Paris condemned, although it had been reviewed and discussed in that House, not only in heat and passion, but also at subsequent periods. In the year 1860 the matter was considered by a Select Committee of the House of Commons on the Merchant Shipping question—a Committee remarkable for having among its Members such men as Mr. Lindsay, Mr. Milner Gibson, Mr. Baring, Mr. Cardwell, and the Representative of West Norfolk. By that Committee the question of belligerent rights was discussed, and they stated in their Report that, while aware that grave objections had been urged by high authorities against the Declaration of Paris, they could not refrain from expressing the hope that in the interests of humanity and civilization all private property not being contraband of war should be exempt from seizure. The Committee went on to say that Great Britain was deeply interested in the adoption of such a course, inasmuch as she had at all times a greater amount of property afloat than any other nation. On that recommendation he would not venture to pronounce any opinion, beyond remarking that it showed the Declaration of Paris had not been subjected to all the censure which some supposed. But it was contended that the Declaration might be acted upon unjustly. In contradiction, however, to that, he would point out that when hostilities had occurred between the Republic of Chili—which was a party to the Declaration—and Spain—which was not a party to it—all the facilities and advantages for war the loss of which was deplored by those who were opposed to the Declaration were brought into requisition with the assent of all by the Republic of Chili. No argument had, therefore, he maintained, been adduced by the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight to justify the course which he asked the House to adopt; and he would appeal to hon. Members not by a chance vote to reverse that which was a very solemn agreement, made after mature consideration, and the spirit and substance of which had been ratified by public opinion, as expressed by those who represented it in Parliament. He begged to conclude by moving the Previous Question.

said, the subject now under consideration was one on which he should not have ventured to intrude his opinions were it not that the defences of the country and its maritime supremacy were principally delegated in time of war on the Navy. The argument of the hon. Member who had just sat down was rather in support of maintaining the principles of the Declaration of Paris untouched than the postponement of its consideration to some more convenient time. He would, therefore, endeavour to show that it was an entire mistake and would go far to sap the naval power of this country in the event of our being engaged in war. By the 11th Article the neutralization of the Black Sea had been effected, and the result had been the Convention between Russia and Turkey, closing the Dardanelles to ships of war, and limiting the naval forces in the Black Sea. It was a Treaty binding and ratified by the contending parties. The Treaty of Paris, so called, was not a Treaty in any sense of the word, and was negotiated by Ambassadors that were not accredited for that particular purpose. In his opinion, the first two Articles of that Treaty were calculated to impair the naval supremacy of England. They contained this declaration of maritime law:—1. Privateering is and remains abolished. 2. The neutral flag covers enemy's goods, with the exception of contraband of war. 3. Neutral goods, with the exception of contraband of war, are not liable to capture under enemy's flag. 4. Blockades, in order to be binding, must be effective—that is to say, maintained by a force sufficient really to prevent access to the coast of the enemy. It was laid down by a high authority that—

"The Law of Nations gives to every belligerent cruiser the right of visitation and search of all merchant ships, wherefore resistance to such search amounts to a forfeiture of neutrality. Particular States have relaxed the rigour of this rule, and by express Treaty granted immunity by establishing a maxim—free ships, free goods. A neutral ship refusing to he searched would from that proceeding alone be condemned as a lawful prize. If we find an enemy's effects on board a neutral ship we seize them by the rights of war; but we are bound to pay the freight to the master of the neutral ship, who is not to suffer by such seizure. The effects of neutrals found in an enemy's ship are to be restored to the owners, against whom there is no right of confiscation, but without any allowance for detainer, decay, &c."

And with regard to neutral things found with an enemy—

"Since it is not the place where a thing is, which determines the nature of that thing, but the character of the person to whom it belongs, things belonging to neutral persons which happen to be in an enemy's country, or on board an enemy's ship, are to be distinguished from those which belong to the enemy."

These principles were laid down in a book which was put into the hands of naval officers for their guidance. As a general principle it seemed to him that this right of seizing an enemy's goods wherever they might be found ought to be maintained. There was no doubt that unless our Navy had that power the enemy would obtain an advantage over us. A practical difficulty arose immediately after the rupture of 1803. French commerce was spreading all over the world, and a large number of French vessels were in the Black Sea. These vessels Nelson had made arrangements to seize and secure, because they were not only conveying the commerce of the enemy, but that which would have been contraband of war also, if they succeeded in escaping Nelson's vigilance. He stated in his despatch that he was thrown into great difficulty by reason of the facilities the enemy's ships had of changing their flags. It was stated in the Life of Nelson—

"Without entering into the merits of the case …… there was great cause for suspicion that the vessels or cargoes, or both, were belonging to enemies, and were merely covered with neutral papers. My orders are positive for respect to the neutral flag …… I shall only lastly observe that 170 French vessels were in the Black Sea at the commencement of hostilities, and that by a magic touch of merchants they became in a moment Russians, Imperials, Ionians, Ragusans, and not one French vessel remained."

If Nelson had not had then the power which the hon. Gentleman the Member for the Isle of Wight asked to have restored, the transfer of the flag would, under the Declaration of Paris, have allowed them to have eluded his vigilance. All experience, he maintained, went to show that this power of searching neutral vessels and seizing an enemy's goods on board was one of the highest importance. In respect to privateering, also, he thought we should do well to denounce the Declaration of Paris. No doubt, however desirous this country might be of manning a large naval force, and we had, as he thought we had not, a sufficient number of ironclads for defence on the outbreak of war, the only way of covering the seas and of destroying the commerce of our enemy would be by hiring or commissioning merchant ships; and he contended that since Russia declined to be bound by the portion of the Treaty which related to the Black Sea, the best course for us to pursue was to declare that we would no longer abide by Declarations which were framed, not in our interest but in that of others. He had great pleasure in supporting the Motion of his hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Wight.

Sir, as the hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Hermon), as well as the hon. and gallant Gentleman who has just sat down (Sir John Hay), has appealed to me, and referred to the views which I expressed on a former occasion when this question was before the House, I trust that the House will give me its attention for a short time. In answer to the hon. Gentleman's appeal, I beg to say that my opinions have not changed. I have always thought, and I still think, that the so-called Declaration of Paris was a serious mistake, and that when our Plenipotentiary put his hand to that document he did an act which, in my judgment, will materially affect the interests, and, I will add, the safety of this country in time of war. Holding this opinion, I nevertheless feel myself in great difficulty when called upon to support the Motion of the hon. Gentleman the Member for the Isle of Wight (Mr. Baillie Cochrane). According to the terms of the Motion, the assertion of our maritime rights in time of war is made to depend, in a manner, upon "the opportunity arising out of the Conference at Brussels." I do not see the connection. If there is any one act of Her Majesty's Government which com- mands, and, I believe, has received, the universal approbation and thanks of the country, it is the course they have taken with respect to the Conference of Brussels. When they consented to send a representative to Brussels, they did so under reservations and restrictions having relation to this very matter of our maritime rights, and they have since refused altogether to take part in the adjourned Conference. What opportunity, then, does the Conference offer? Does the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Baillie Cochrane) mean that Her Majesty's Government should reverse their policy and send a Representative to St. Petersburg? The objects of that Conference' have been disclosed. We now know that the regulation of military operations on land is not the sole purpose for which the Powers have been invited to meet, and Her Majesty's Government when they found this, did wisely, I think, in declining to take any further part in their proceedings. Again, with regard to our "withdrawing," as the Motion expresses it, from the Declaration of Paris, I would ask the hon. Member (Mr. Baillie Cochrane) to consider whether the Declaration is or is not an engagement. If it is an engagement, then we cannot withdraw from it without the consent of the other parties. To do so would be a breach of honour and good faith. If it is not an engagement, then there is nothing to withdraw from. Now, there is a great deal of misapprehension on this point. There is a notion in some quarters that because the Declaration is not a Treaty properly so-called, we are not bound by it; but just as a man in private life might be bound by his pledged word,—by a parole undertaking, so may a nation be bound—bound in honour and good faith—by a document not bearing the more formal attributes of a Treaty. I have always regretted and condemned what was done at the Congress of Paris, believing it to be fraught with evil, and probable disaster for us hereafter. I may be wrong in this opinion. If I am, I but share the error of many of our most eminent statesmen and public men. The same opinion has been expressed not only by the right hon. Gentleman opposite, the present Prime Minister, and many of his Colleagues, but by the late Mr. John Stuart Mill and Earl Russell. The one was a great philosopher, whose whole life was devoted to the study of what was best calculated to promote the freedom and the happiness of mankind; he was also for some years in Parliament, and sat on the side of the House on which I sit. The other is a renowned and experienced practical statesman, who was for a long time at the head of the Liberal Party in this country. All these eminent men have condemned the Declaration of Paris. Considering the circumstances under which it was signed, the country had a perfect right at the time, or within a reasonable time afterwards, to renounce it altogether, and to tell the Powers of Europe that the Parliament of Great Britain—that the English nation—would not consent to part with, or to jeopardize, one iota of its power as a great nation, or of its means of self defence in time of war. I say that Parliament should, at the time, or within a reasonable time after, have declared itself upon the matter, and have called upon the Government of the day to make known our refusal to sanction the course taken by our Plenipotentiary. But what was done? There were debates in both Houses; that was all; and although two or three times since the matter has been discussed in one House or the other, for 19 years we have slept upon our rights, and not only have we taken no active measures to intimate our dissent, but we have induced other nations to accept the Declaration. How then can we now, with any regard to consistency or honour, call upon the Government to "withdraw" from the Declaration? This is the position in which we are placed. We cannot "withdraw;" we cannot repudiate; and yet a time will come, as I firmly believe, when our safety, as well as our honour, will require us to take decisive action in this matter, and when, perhaps, war alone will relieve us from this fatal engagement. The hon. Member who moved the Previous Question (Mr. Cartwright) has referred to Treaties which have been entered into between ourselves and other countries, in order to show that we had given up before what was given up by the Declaration of Paris, and that, therefore, we had not parted with any very important advantage when we gave up the right of seizing enemy's goods in neutral vessels. In fact, as I understood the hon. Gentleman, or as I have heard others argue, these Treaties go to show that this power of seizure was always opposed to the general feeling of Europe, and that, therefore, we had been obliged from time to time to yield it up. Nothing can be more fallacious. There is the widest possible distinction between waiving a right on a particular occasion, or in a particular case, and giving it up altogether. This is what was done at the commencement of the last war with Russia, when we waived our right of seizure, and this is what was done by the Treaties referred to by the hon. Gentleman. Each of those Treaties was between this country and some particular nation, and was entered into to serve a specific object. They contained stipulations for certain reciprocal advantages, and in time of war between ourselves and any one of those nations a Treaty so made was to be, and was, of no effect. Nay, so far from these Treaties affording proof that the Law of Nations, or the general opinion of nations, was opposed to the right of seizure in time of war, they show the very contrary. The very fact of entering into Treaties or inserting stipulations on the subject was an admission of the right as a well-known, acknowledged, universal maritime rule. The hon. Gentleman (Mr. Cartwright) said that hon. Members should study History and Treaties more minutely before citing them, and he then referred to two or three in particular, and called special attention to the Treaty with Holland, which was negotiated by Sir "William Temple. He could not have cited a more unfortunate instance. What was the history of that Treaty? After it had been in existence some 90 years we went to war with France, and finding that the Dutch were rendering material assistance to the French, especially in their trade with their Colonies, we issued an order to our cruisers to seize all enemy's goods in Neutral vessels. The Dutch remonstrated, but we persisted, and we put a stop to the French Colonial trade. Here was an example of what the necessities of a war entailed upon us as a maritime nation, and of the impossibility of giving up under all circumstances a right, or a usage, which we had always exercised, and which was necessary to our strength in time of war. I repeat, the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Cartwright) could not have cited a more unfortunate instance for his argument, nor could he have practised himself the precept respecting the study of History and Treaties which he enjoined upon others. But it is said that this practice of seizing enemy's goods in time of war is a barbarous practice, and owes its origin to barbarous times. What are the facts, and what is the Law of Nations on the subject? I will not go so far back as the Roman Empire; I will content myself with the period when the Maritime Code known as the Conso-lato del Mare became the acknowledged Law of Europe. This period has been variously fixed, but general opinion assigns it to the 13th century. What was the condition of Europe then? There was the Greek Emperor on the throne at Constantinople. Syria, Cyprus, and the Balearic Isles were actively engaged in commerce. You had the Republics of Venice and Genoa, and France and Spain alike, engaged in trade. In the West, the German Emperor was on the throne, and his influence extended to the Netherlands, and as far as the Southern shores of the Baltic. All civilized Europe, in fact, from the East to the West, and throughout the Adriatic and the Mediterranean, and up to the North, as far as the Baltic, was engaged in commerce. It was at that time, and under these conditions, and it was by these maritime communities, that this code of laws was accepted as the rules that were to regulate their intercourse, and their relations in time of war. And what was the particular rule of which we are speaking—I mean with reference to the right of seizing enemy's goods in neutral vessels? Why, it was simply this—it may be summed up in a few words—namely, that a neutral should not be allowed to feed the resources of one belligerent as against another, but that in order to prevent this, besides contraband of war, an enemy's goods should be seized whenever found on board a neutral vessel. And how was this done? Not to the injury of the neutral, but of the belligerent only. The goods of the enemy were seized, but not the vessel. The vessel after adjudication in a Court of Maritime Law, was not only released, but the owners were to he paid, and were paid, the freight to which they would have been entitled had they taken the goods to their destination, and in some instances demurrage was allowed as well. What was there either unfair or barbarous in such a law? This was the acknowledged public law of Europe down to the Declaration of Paris. Two centuries after the time of which I am speaking, Grotius mentions the provisions of the Consolato as containing the constitutions of the Maritime States. Albericus Gentilis, Molloy, Lam-predi, Heineccius, Bynkershöek, our own Zouch and Vattel do the same. In later times Lord Stowell, and Wheaton, Story, and Kent—three great American jurists—repeat and confirm the authority of these writers. These men were all jurists, of the highest order and authority, belonging to different countries—countries, it may be supposed, having in some respects different views and interests upon many questions of national, or public policy; and yet they all agree in asserting and confirming the provisions of the Consolato as a code of public law. It was never disputed until the refusal of Frederick the Great to satisfy the English claims after the cession of Silesia, and then, for the first time, the attempt was made to put forward the new principle that "free ships make free goods; "but we resisted it, and the English claims were paid. Afterwards the celebrated Commission, known as the Prussian Commission, was appointed in order to alter the old maritime code, and establish a set of rules more favourable to Prussian interests. The memorials which were issued by this Commission were answered by the able letter of the Duke of Newcastle, and the masterly report which Lord Mansfield, then Solicitor General, assisted in drawing up, and we heard nothing more of the new doctrine until the Armed Neutrality of 1780 when the Empress Catherine determined to give effect to the new principles of maritime law. But what became of the Armed Neutrality we all know. It was levelled directly against us; but 15 years afterwards, every nation that had joined this combination against England, one by one, as soon as it was found that the new rule touched its interests, abandoned it, Russia itself being the chief instigator. It is curious, if the House will allow me, to refer to some of the Treaties made by these nations when repudiating the engagement into which they had entered. France was the first to throw over the new rule. By a decree of the National Convention of the 9th May, 1793—"enemy's goods on board neutral vessels" were declared "good prize, the neutral ships being released and freight paid by the captors." Here is the old rule of the Consolato revived. This decree was enforced by a decree of the Executive Directory of the 2nd March, 1797. On the 8th February, 1793, Russia renounced her Treaty of 1786 with France, declaring that the principle "free ships free goods" should be "no longer obligatory until the restoration of order in France," that is, until the French nation should acknowledge the "right divine of kings to govern wrong." In the same year Russia renewed with England her Treaty of 1766, stipulating that neutral commerce should be carried on "according to the principles and rules of the Law of Nations generally recognized"—that is, according to the old established rule of the sea. On the same day she made another Treaty with us engaging that the contracting powers should unite all their efforts—to do, what does the House think?—

"To prevent neutrals from giving on this occasion of common concern to every civilized State, any protection whatever, directly or indirectly, in consequence of their neutrality, to the commerce or property of the French on the sea, or in the ports of France."

A similar article was inserted in the Treaty of the same year between Great Britain and Spain, between Great Britain and Prussia, and between Great Britain and the Emperor. Thus, as all these Powers had combined against us to establish a new rule, the moment they found themselves affected by it, they combined again to abandon the principles of the Armed Neutrality and to reaffirm the old rule. The new rules were abandoned by Sweden in the year 1788, and by Russia, France, Spain, Prussia, and by the Emperor. In 1809, Russia herself issued a ukase declaring that—

"Ships laden in part with goods of the manufacture or produce of hostile countries shall be stopped, and such merchandize confiscated and sold by auction for the profit of the Crown; and," the article continues, "if the merchandize aforesaid compose more than half the cargo, not only the cargo, but also the ship shall be confiscated."

After these specimens of Treaties, which of these nations has a right to set up as a claimant for enlarged privileges of neutrality? But the great grievance, or at least the danger arising from the right of seizing enemy's goods, as I have always understood it, was not so much the seizure itself, as the right of search which it involved. This was the chief cause of our differences with the United States of America in 1812. But has the Declaration of Paris removed this grievance, or this danger? It has expressly excepted contraband of war. But how are you to ascertain whether a vessel is carrying contraband of war, unless you go on board and search her? There is no stipulation that the production of the ship's papers shall be sufficient; so that, according to the terms of the "Declaration," if we were at war, we should have still the right to go on board a neutral ship, in order to satisfy ourselves as to whether she was carrying contraband or not. But it has been said the right of seizure is an interference with trade, and that it is demoralizing to allow our maritime population to be rovers on the seas, seizing and carrying away, as spoils of war, the property of innocent people. But I would ask, is it not more demoralizing to feed a war for the sake of gain, to assist an enemy's resources, and enable it to prolong the miseries which war entails? Is it conducive to public morality that one part of a nation shall be at peace while the other is at war? That your merchants and traders shall be carrying on a roaring trade with the enemy, increasing and strengthening its means of aggression or resistance, while we are sending the bravest, the very flower, of our youth to bleed and to die on the battle-field? To my mind, there is a heartless selfishness involved in such a condition of things that is repugnant to every manly sentiment. This is not the way to foster or promote public spirit, or great national virtues in a people—to employ the terse eloquence of the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Disraeli),—"You might produce rich communities, but you will create weak States." This modern notion of humanizing war, as it is termed, may be well expressed in the phrase, "Slay your enemy, but spare his property"—yes; "Blow him to atoms at the cannon's mouth, but do not touch his goods." How are we, a maritime nation, to defend ourselves against a formidable military power upon such a principle? If Russia were to cross our Indian frontier, by what military force could we resist her? How could we oppose her, except by crippling her trade and annihilating her commerce? If a war were to arise—God forbid that such a thing should happen—between ourselves and the United States, and an army were marched into Canada, what resistance could England make except upon the ocean? These are contingencies—considerations of a practical character that to my mind outweigh entirely the mistaken, however well-meant, intentions of those who would humanize war, as they think, by giving immunity to the trade of belligerents, and converting war into a sort of duel by proxy between nations. Sir, that is not my notion of humanity, or of a sound national or international policy. Every nation owes a duty to itself. It owes a duty also to the world; for to each one a mission has been given. As Rome taught the art of government and the science of law, so it has been ours to spread the blessings of liberty, to show how freedom can combine with social order, and how a nation that is free will become great. As one of the most civilizing influences of the world,—one, so to speak, of its chief moral agents—let us beware lest we lower our position among the great family of nations, and so weaken our power for good.

said, the question appeared to divide itself into two parts; first, whether it would be advantageous to this country to withdraw from the Declaration of Paris; and, secondly, whether they were morally entitled to do so? At present, he could not see what great service their Navy would be to them in case of war if they maintained the stipulations of that Declaration. Were they to confine the operations of their fleet merely to the attack of fortresses which were situated on the sea, or of the vessels of their enemies? They were debarred from doing the former by the new system of torpedoes, while they were prevented from attacking men-of-war by their remaining under the protection of their own fortresses. Therefore, the whole function of their fleet would be to defend the shores of England, or to attack the merchant ships of other countries at sea. He would remind the House of the conduct of Russia, after the Treaty of Paris. In the preliminaries of peace, which were put forward by England, it was laid down that all the ports on the Black Sea should he disarmed and their arsenals rendered useless for the purposes of war. After the Congress had met at Paris, Russia maintained that the port of Nicolaieff did not come within the terms of the preliminaries of peace. Our Law Officers of the Crown agreed that such was the case; but in consequence of the neutrality of the Black Sea, Russia undertook not to arm ships at the arsenal at Nicolaieff. The Russian Government, however, subsidized a steam company to build vessels there, and gave it the use of the arsenal on the condition that the ships should be so built that they could be converted into vessels of war. At any moment almost these ships could have waged war. That seemed to him to be an evasion not only of the Treaty, but especially of the stipulation that privateering was abolished. Then, during the war which took place between France and Austria, it was Greece, whose neutrality was guaranteed by other States, and which had, perhaps, the largest carrying trade in the Mediterranean, that profited by the Declaration of Paris. The next point he had to consider was how far would they be justified in withdrawing from the Treaty. Other nations had withdrawn from obligations equally binding. He would not allude to the case of Russia withdrawing from the Treaty with reference to the neutrality of the Black Sea, because the manner in which that withdrawal was made could never be sanctioned by the civilized nations, though he owned there were difficulties connected with the question, and he had not joined in any violent vociferation against the late Government, who had to deal with those difficulties. But it could not be denied that Russia, propria, motu, withdrew from the solemn stipulation of the Treaty. But there were certain other Declarations from which other nations had withdrawn. In the first place, the Principalities were to be governed by two Princes. The Principalities evaded that by each electing the same man, Prince Couza, and when he was driven away, Prince Charles took his place. And now Austria, Germany, and Russia insisted on making a commercial treaty with the Principalities, which was a third evasion. Then there was another arrangement at the time of the Congress of Paris, not so solemn as those with regard to privateering, and the immunity from seizure of foreign goods in neutral bottoms, but it came next, as it was solemnly made in the Protocol. At that time Lord Clarendon proposed, and the proposal was agreed to and signed by the Plenipotentiaries, that in case of any difference arising between the Powers they would have recourse to arbitration instead of going to war. Almost every foreign Government gave its adhesion to that Declaration; but how many Governments had stuck to it? England was the only one which had done so in the case of that celebrated episode in our history, the Alabama Claims. Having shown that it would be necessary to resume the rights abandoned in 1856, and that there was full margin for doing so, he would recommend his hon. Friend not to press his Motion to a division. An almost unanimous opinion had been expressed by the House that we were not bound; he hoped his hon. Friend would rest satisfied with that, and allow the Motion of the hon. Member for Oxfordshire (Mr. Cartwright) to be adopted.

said, it appeared to him, from the speeches of that evening, that a great misapprehension existed on this question. It seemed to be supposed that the Earl of Clarendon had, at the Congress of Paris, on behalf of the British Government, abandoned rights which had been up to that moment deemed essential for the protection of the rights and the honour of England. But it should be remembered that at the commencement of the Crimean War this concession to neutral nations was deliberately adopted by a Government, of which Lord Palmerston was a Member—a man not likely needlessly to have sacrified the interests of his country. And it was adopted not only with a view to maintain the peace of the world, and to avoid dragging neutral nations unnecessarily into the war, but above all as a concession to the progress of commerce and civilization which undoubtedly had marked the space which had elapsed from the times of Nelson. No doubt they were very far removed from the times, though not from the spirit of Nelson. But when hon. Members called on them to practise those excessive acts of power and tyranny which were exercised in Nelson's time, they seemed, as the hon. Member for the Isle of "Wight seemed, like another Rip Van Winkle, who, awaking from a 50 years' slumber, rushed into the House and exclaimed, "Good Heavens! what has happened since I was last among you?" It was well known that at the commencement of the Crimean War the Russian Government was going to commission privateers from the United States, and it was only the Declaration in question which saved the world from a horde of pirates issuing from the United States under the Russian flag. When, therefore, hon. Members discussed this question of the Declaration of Paris he must ask them to discuss it as a whole, and not merely as laying down the doctrine of free ships, free goods. Let it be taken in connection with that very important Article of the Declaration—very important for us as a maritime Power—that blockades to be effective must be real; that there must be no such thing as paper blockades. Let it be taken in connection also with the Article which abolished privateering, and he could not believe that any hon. Member could be in earnest when he expressed a desire to see us go back to times gone by, when the practice of piracy and privateering prevailed. With regard to what fell from the hon. and gallant Member for Stamford, he would point out that the abandonment of privateering would not prevent us from fitting out and putting into commission any number of ships taken from our merchant service, placing our own naval officers on board, remembering how far in advance of other countries we were in the resources of our Royal Navy, both as to competent officers and able seamen; he considered that we should, also, under this head, be distinct gainers. In conclusion, he said that, whether this was to be looked upon as a Treaty or not, the House must not forget that we had invited many nations to accede to its provisions, and that, except Spain and the United States, almost every civilized State had now joined in the Declaration.

said, the House would agree with him that the subject which had been so ably brought before it by his hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Wight (Mr. Baillie Cochrane) was one well deserving of consideration. Her Majesty's Government were well aware that the question was interesting, not only to many hon. Members, but also to many of the people of this country, who took an interest in it from purely patriotic motives. The form of the Motion before the House was one of considerable ambiguity; but after the speech of his hon. Friend, it might be clearly divided into two different propositions—the first, that Her Majesty's Government ought to have taken advantage of the Conference of Brussels to bring the subject of the Declaration before it; and the second, that Her Majesty's Government was not bound by the Declaration. As to the first proposition, if Her Majesty's Government had been ever so willing to bring the subject before the Conference, it would have been impossible to do so for this reason—that the Powers who were signataries to the Declaration of Paris were not the same as those which met at Brussels. Because, although the Declaration of Paris was signed only by Turkey, Russia, Austria, Prussia, Italy, and England, yet upon the invitation of those Powers, various other Powers of the world subsequently sent in their adhesion to that arrangement. That might be looked upon by many as a technical reason for not going into the subject at the Conference of Brussels. But there was a stronger reason which must suggest itself to every man's mind, and that was, that the object of the Conference at Brussels was entirely foreign to the subject of the Declaration of Paris. The subject to be brought before the Congress of Brussels was an inquiry into the rules of military warfare, for the purpose of mitigating the horrors and calamities of war. And it seemed to be clear to Her Majesty's Government that their object ought to be to limit, rather than extend, that inquiry as much as possible. If the course suggested by his hon. Friend behind him (Mr. Baillie Cochrane) had been adopted by the Government, the various theories of maritime warfare would have been discussed; the immunity of all private property at sea, and the most delicate questions of International Law would have been debated in the Congress, and our declared intention to depart from the Declaration of Paris would, no doubt, have been made the pretext by others for getting rid of engagements which for some reason they thought themselves entitled to abandon. Therefore, he said the course taken by the Government was to limit as much as possible the subjects to be considered by the Congress at Brussels. That course was clear and decided. It was laid down in the Papers before the House. They were perfectly determined not to enter into any discussion of the rules of International Law by which the relations of belligerents were guided, or undertake any new obligations or engagements of any kind in regard to general principles; and they required, before sending a delegate to the Conference, the most positive and distinct assurances from every power taking part in the Congress that they agreed to the course proposed by the Government, and would not entertain in any shape, directly or indirectly, anything relating to maritime operations or naval warfare. Such were the instructions given to General Horsford, and that officer had carried out his instructions to the entire satisfaction of the Government. Having laid that down as the rule of their conduct, the Government would have been greatly to blame if they had departed from it, and they should have been guilty of the grossest inconsistency if they had brought forward any subjects like that suggested by the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight. He need not advert to the reasons for not going further. It had been asserted that the Government of St. Petersburg had some secret reason for inviting us to join the Conference in that City. He was not aware what that secret reason could be; but if there was a secret reason, it was all the more necessary for the Government to take the course they did on that occasion—not to allow any discussion of questions of International Law, nor to adopt the suggestion of the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight. In the course which they had taken, the Government had received the unanimous support of the Press throughout the country, and they had also received the thanks of the country for having adhered to that course. The Declaration of Paris embraced four points, but after all, there was only one to which very serious objection had been taken, and that was the Article with regard to the neutral ships. Well, in conceding the right of taking enemy's goods out of principle that "free ships made free goods," there could be no doubt the country gave up a belligerent right she had exercised from very ancient times, and which she considered a powerful arm of maritime warfare. There was no doubt that that right had been incorporated from time immemorial in the code of our maritime laws, and this country on two memorable occasions showed that it was prepared to bravo nearly the whole world for the purpose of sustaining those ancient maritime rights. That right had been sanctioned by the highest authorities, ancient and modern—by Crotius, Vattel, Hubner, Chief Justice Marshal, Kent, Story, and Wheaton. Under these circumstances, we could not be surprised that there were living statesmen among us who had the greatest possible doubt as to the wisdom of the course taken in 1856, and that we ought to leave ourselves to act, as in 1854, not binding ourselves by any new Declaration, but acting on the principle of what was most expedient for us to adopt. But that was not the question of the present day. The question now was, having now this Declaration as part and parcel of International agreements—was it our duty to denounce that Declaration because at the time when we entered into it there were some persons in this country who thought we had taken a false step? These persons seemed to forget that by such a course we were met face to face by another Declaration—the Declaration that was made, on the meeting of the Black Sea Conference in London in 1871, which was to this effect—

"That it is an essential principle of the Law of Nations that no Power can liberate itself from the engagements of a Treaty, nor modify the stipulations thereof, unless with the consent of the contracting Powers by means of an amicable arrangement."

Both Houses of Parliament had refused to denounce the Declaration of Paris when the subject had been brought before them. They had refused to alter the terms of the Declaration of Paris, and he was a little surprised to hear some hon. Gentlemen say that because that instrument was not ratified we were not bound by it. All he could say with respect to that was, that he hoped he should never see the day when a Minister of the Crown or one of its Law Officers would repudiate an engagement because it lacked certain formalities. The Plenipotentiary had full power to sign the Declaration, and that went a great way to show that the Declaration was binding upon us. He must say that he thought his hon. Friends who were in favour of doing away with the Declaration of Paris seemed to have forgotten that in the last century the principle which had been acted upon for nearly 70 or 80 years of peace between Prance, Portugal, England, and the Netherlands was, that free ships made free goods, although no doubt in time of war every one of those Powers did not act upon that principle. He need not, however, remind the House that we had entered into treaties with various Powers acknowledging the principle, but that other Powers had done so to even a greater extent than ourselves. And when the effect of the rule was taken into consideration we could not be surprised that such was the case, because everybody must admit that if the right of taking enemy's goods out of neutral ships did to a certain extent allow a belligerent to injure his adversary, yet it must be admitted that it had at the same time the result of irritating one's friends. It had a tendency in times of war to involve belligerents with their allies and to excite the most rancorous disputes between neutrals, while it also served to produce litigation between individuals, for it was always most difficult to prove that the goods seized were the property of the belligerents. He could not, therefore, help thinking that circumstances might arise when the advantage we had gained, and which we certainly did sometimes gain, by capturing enemy's goods in neutral vessels would be more than counterbalanced by the very great evils which might be caused by the irritation of our friends. Should we, he would ask, be likely to bear with equanimity to see our vessels, when neutral, stopped on the high seas, brought into port, and detained for any length of time on the ground that there were enemy's goods on board? Yet, if we withdrew from the Declaration of Paris, that was a result which we must expect; because by withdrawing from that Declaration we should be asserting in the strongest terms our refusal to recognize the doctrine that the neutral flag covered an enemy's goods. He had heard it stated in the course of the discussion this evening that neutrals gained very little by the concession which had been made; but that was, he confessed, to him a somewhat novel statement, for he had always understood that it had been admitted that, whatever effect might have been produced by the Declaration of Paris on belligerents, there had been no doubt whatever entertained of its advantages in the case of neutral Powers. His hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Wight did not seem to be quite satisfied that this country should be neutral; but he could not quite follow his arguments with respect to the taking of tallow during the Russian "War, nor could he concur with what had been said by many hon. Gentlemen with respect to the abolition of privateers. Whenever he had occasion to speak on that subject he had always stated that this part of the Declaration of Paris, at all events, admitted of no doubt. He could not understand how hon. Gentlemen could justify privateering in a point of view which had been called by almost every person the curse of commerce. Even those by whom it had been upheld as the last resource of war had admitted that it was most desirable it should, if possible, be got rid of. This country had gained far more than any other by its abolition so far as we had gone, and if we could only get the rest of the world to agree with us in this matter we should be still further benefited. No nation was more open to privateers in proportion to the strength of our commercial marine compared with a belligerent. Let him suppose that one of the nations, not ourselves, were to be engaged in war with a country at the other end of the world. If either of those countries sent out privateers, there was no doubt our commerce would suffer; because in all probability those privateers would not be very particular as to the ships which they took, and in all likelihood a great many of those ships would have on board English goods. His hon. and gallant Friend (Sir John Hay) had mentioned a species of privateering which he (Mr. Bourke) had never heard of, because he spoke of privateering being carried on by commissioned officers and by officers belonging to Her Majesty's Navy. That was, however, not privateering in the sense in which it was ever carried on, and there was nothing in the Declaration of Paris to forbid an arrangement which had over and over again been said to be most desirable if the commercial marine of this country would undertake it. The hon. Member for the Isle of Wight had said that privateers were nothing but volunteers of the sea; but there was the greatest possible difference between volunteers and privateers, because the volunteer acted under the command of officers and in a regular manner, while privateers could do whatever they chose without any commander or rule whatever, except rules they made for themselves; and they made war for their own purposes and profit. If, again, we became belligerents there was no doubt we should lose a certain portion of our carrying trade; but we should also recollect that we should be able to carry on our commerce in neutral vessels. He trusted, however, that if unfortunately we should be at war, we should be able to protect our commerce with our own Navy, so that as long as we continued to be a powerful maritime nation the fancied evil which would result to our carrying trade seemed to him to be very much exaggerated. For his own part, he did not think anything would be more impolitic than that we should declare beforehand that we were about to sacrifice the Declaration of Paris by stopping the neutral ships of our allies and searching for belligerent goods. Such a course would, in his opinion, be very likely to turn neutrals into enemies. In case of war, we should then be obliged to do one of two things—either to re-abandon the rights of capturing belligerent goods in neutral vessels—not a very dignified course after repudiating the Declaration of Paris—or we must inevitably run the risk of turning neutrals into enemies, as he had just observed. We must also bear in mind that although neutral rights were now more generally recognized than in more remote times, yet the Declaration did not infringe on the right of search, or on the law of contraband; and so long as those two laws remained we need not, in his opinion, apprehend any of those evil results which some hon. Gentlemen seemed to imagine. In consequence of the progress of science in the present day the tendency was to increase the number of articles declared to be contraband of war; and such articles would, of course, be liable to seizure if carried in neutral vessel. In the few remarks he had made he had endeavoured to look at this question in a candid spirit. He did not think that the Declaration of Paris was open to all the grave objections that had been urged against it. He could not concur with those who wished to go further and to give immunity to all private property at sea, because he believed that by so doing we should be sweeping away the most valuable belligerent rights the great maritime Powers possessed. There was a cardinal difference between such a principle and anything that was contained in the Declaration of Paris, which put forward stipulations that were to be carried out by neutral Powers, whereas the abandonment of the right of capture of all private property at sea would concern those Powers who might be belligerent; and there was, therefore, no use in laying clown a principle which would be swept aside the moment the two Powers interested went to war with each other. On the whole, therefore, it would not, in his opinion, be prudent or expedient to get rid of the Declaration of Paris, and Her Majesty's Government could not be blind to the grave results that would arise from disturbing that arrangement. A course of that kind could not be taken without arousing a great difference of opinion not only among the Powers who were the original signataries to the Treaty, but also among the 40 other Powers who had since signed it, and it could not be taken without infringing the great principle of fidelity to international engagements which this country had always endeavoured to uphold. He did not agree, therefore, in the opinion that the Conference at Brussels, or the proposed Conference at St. Petersburg, were occasions favourable for the discussion of this question, and he thought that this would not be a suitable time for discussing it in an European Conference. Entertaining, as he did, the views he had endeavoured to lay before the House, he should, in the event of the House being called upon to divide on the subject, vote with the hon. Member for Oxfordshire in support of the Previous Question.

said, he had heard with satisfaction—and he was certain that the country would hear with satisfaction—the prudent, moderate, and sagacious statement of the Under Secre- tary of State for Foreign Affairs; it was a statement worthy of himself, and of the high position which he occupied as one of the responsible Ministers of the Crown. He (Sir William Harcourt) could assure the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight (Mr. Baillie Cochrane) that he would not find in him an advocate of selfish isolation, nor had he addicted himself to the new-fangled doctrines of International Maritime Law which had long prevailed on the Continent of Europe, and which had been largely disseminated in this country. The little he had learnt on the subject of maritime law had been acquired as a disciple in the school of those great masters to whom his hon. Friend had alluded—Lord Stowell, Chief Justice Marshal, Kent, and Story—those great publicists who had established upoh unshakable foundations the great principles which governed the maritime relations of States. He entirely concurred with the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs that those principles—some of which were deliberately abandoned at the Conference of Paris—were principles which were well established in the Law of Nations, and that to attempt to dispute that they were maritime rights were attempts which no jurists or publicists could listen to for a moment. He also entirely agreed with the Under Secretary that the proposition made to exempt private property at sea from capture, and the proposal to abolish the right of commercial blockade were untenable in International Law, and if attempted would be injurious to the maritime supremacy of England. To have introduced a discussion of these matters at the Conference at Brussels would have been entirely impertinent to the matters with which that Conference dealt, and would have been extremely imprudent and unwise on the part of Great Britain. When the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight said that by the Declaration of Paris two great blows were struck at the maritime supremacy of England—by the abolition of letters of marque and by the abandonment of the right of search—he confessed that he heard him with some surprise. Everyone knew that letters of marque were the powerful instruments of weak maritime States, and that they were a thorn in the side of States possessing great Navies, and that if any nation was in- terested in getting rid of privateering it was the one that expended £10,000,000 or £11,000,000 a-year in supporting the greatest and most powerful Navy in the world. The nation that raised the strongest objections to the abolition of privateering was the United States, which possessed no considerable Navy, but which, from the enterprize of its sailors, and the extent of its Mercantile Marine, would, in the event of war, be able to send forth hordes of privateers all over the world. The very fact of the United States objecting to the abolition of privateering, therefore, was the strongest argument to show that privateering was injurious to England. It must have been by inadvertence that the hon. Member had suggested that the right of search had been surrendered by the Declaration of Paris; because the right of search existed at the present time, otherwise the right to seize contraband of war and of blockade could not be enforced. The hon. Gentleman had made another extraordinary statement. He had said that this claim of exempting enemy's goods from capture on board neutral vessels was not advanced till 1751. He alluded to the celebrated case of the capture of Prussian vessels with respect to the Silesian Loan, which all English lawyers admitted with the greatest respect was not altogether creditable to Prussia. He (Sir William Harcourt) had often heard the Prime Minister of England speak of the Administration which was the author of the Treaty of Utrecht as a great Tory Party which laid down the true principles of maritime law. He (Sir William Harcourt) did not admire the Administration of Bolingbroke and Harley; but it had one title to fame in the history of this country—its enlightened commercial policy. The Treaty of Utrecht had always been referred to as one which settled this very question. The Tory Administration of Lord Bolingbroke, which negotiated it, established the principle that free ships made free goods as between the parties to that negotiation; and England, in her Treaty with France and with Spain, made that one of the cardinal features of the Treaty of Utrecht. He therefore rather envied the Tory Party that they were the originators in modern Europe of the establishment of that very principle which was ultimately concentrated in 1856 in the Declaration of Paris. There was another thing which he had also heard the Prime Minister claim for the Tory Party, although in this matter he should feel inclined to dispute the title. In the early days of Pitt, when he was a great Parliamentary reformer, he was also a great commercial reformer, and, following the Administration of Boling-broke, he also advocated the principle of free goods in free ships. If during the whole of the last century this principle was regarded as the cardinal feature of the foreign policy of England, and was ratified in the great settlement of Europe in 1815, and in the great Commercial Treaty of 1786, it was a little extraordinary that the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight had now come forward to say that it was a novel proposition. The hon. Member had referred to the history of the Armed Neutrality; but the declaration of Armed Neutrality was made in 1780, at the period of the great weakness of England, when, owing to the unfortunate policy of the war with America, the greatness which Chatham achieved for her had been almost annulled in Europe. England, it was true, accepted the principles of the Armed Neutrality, but she was not in a situation to resist them, and therefore, in 1780, although she protested against those principles, she was practically compelled to acquiesce in them. It was perfectly true that in the second Armed Neutrality, in 1800, she stood in a different position. She was then, by the genius of Nelson and the valour of her sailors, mistress of the seas, and in a situation to dictate to the world, as she did in the attack on Copenhagen. Then was made a Treaty which conceded not this particular point, but other points, which led to a protest by Lord Grenville. From 1815 this question slept in the policy of Cabinets, but not in the literature of International Law. There were Continental writers who were unanimous upon this subject and unanimous against the claim of capture. It was perfectly true that England had never conceded that right, but she was not bound to concede it. But when, unhappily, as he should always think, the great peace which had lasted 40 years was broken up by the Crimean "War, England had to consider what she ought to do upon this matter. She was engaged in a war with Russia, one of the parties to—indeed, the principal promoter of—the doctrine of the Armed Neutrality. She was looking for allies, and her ally was France, and France was as deeply pledged to this principle as Russia, her opponent, was. She could not have found in Europe or this side of the Atlantic a single maritime ally who would have joined her upon the principles which she herself desired to maintain. She could not have found such an ally on the other side of the Atlantic. If she had gone into that war with Russia maintaining the right of capture of enemy's goods in neutral vessels, she would have found herself not only without any ally, but with every neutral Power in the world her enemy. It was under these circumstances that the Government of England waived—only in the first instance waived—this principle at the outset of the Crimean War. Then came the peace and the Conference of Paris. He had often had the advantage of conversing with Lord Clarendon, and he regretted, from the reverence he bore his name, the manner in which his hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Wight had spoken of him. But he had heard Lord Clarendon say that this Declaration would have been made in Paris whether England had joined in it or not—that the Declaration of all the Powers of Europe upon the subject was so pronounced and unanimous that in that great Conference, which was in some sense a re-adjustment of Europe, that Declaration would inevitably have been made; and Lord Palmerston had also made that statement. Now, a very strong proof that the concession then made was irresistible was to be found in this—that the American Government declined to be bound, and was not under any obligation to observe it. But what happened? When they went to war with the Southern States in 1861 they were compelled to adopt the principles of the Declaration of Paris, and did adopt them. Both sides in that war, in fact, adhered to the abrogation of privateering—to the principle that the goods of an enemy were not to be taken in a neutral vessel, and acted in every sense as if they were signataires of the Treaty of Paris. That, he thought, was a sufficient proof that the course that was taken was necessary. He had always regarded the Declaration of Paris as a compromise, and not an unfair compro- mise, between the rival pretensions—on the one hand of the neutral claims of the Armed Neutrality, and on the other hand of the belligerent claims which had been previously claimed by England, and in former days by France and other countries. The document should be looked upon as a whole. While his hon. Friend had only referred to two points of the Declaration, his Resolution would abrogate the whole of it. He would first point out what was gained by the Declaration of Paris, and then allude to what was lost by it. We gained the abolition of privateering, and he agreed with the Under Secretary of State that to a great maritime Power that was an infinite gain. It was more; it was a gain to the civilized world. According to the French name for the word a privateer was a corsair, and that thoroughly expressed the meaning. Privateers were not bound by the sentiments which belonged to officers in the naval service or by the discipline which was to be found among regular soldiers. His hon. Friend compared them to volunteers, but they were more like Franc-tireurs, and volunteers did not go out for gain as they did. That was not the spirit by which they were actuated. The second gain was a practical regulation of the claim of the second Armed Neutrality on the subject of convoy—a claim set up in the great Swedish case decided by Lord Stowell—namely, that a single armed ship might exempt a fleet of merchantmen from search, although they might be laden with contraband of war. The Declaration practically repudiated that claim. The third thing England gained was a definition of blockade; and since that Declaration the war with the United States had established the doctrine of blockade on a sounder footing, and had guarded it with greater stringency with regard to belligerents than before. Now, that was a most valuable right to a maritime Power. It was shown to be in the war with the South, as it was by the stress of the blockade that the great superiority of the Northern States reduced the South to submission. The Declaration of Paris had strengthened rather than weakened a right which was most valuable to a maritime Power. One other right had practically been confirmed, and that was the right of search. There had been put forward by writers on behalf of neutrals all sorts of claims to limit the right of search, but these were practically repudiated by the Declaration, and in the war with the United States the right of search was more rigorously exercised than ever before. That was what England had gained. What had she lost? She had conceded the principle—for unquestionably it was a concession—of free ship, free goods. When we were a belligerent we lost the right to seize an enemy's goods on board a neutral vessel. But England had found herself unable to exercise that right, and she could not at present exercise it in Europe or in America unless she was prepared to fight the whole world, and no other statesman in his senses would maintain that the Declaration should be repudiated on such terms. [A laugh.] His hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Wight laughed; but did he expect that we should he at war longer than at peace? Since 1815, happily, we had been very little at war, and he hoped our policy might be long of that character. But what had been the result? Since the Declaration of Paris, Europe had been at war and America had been at war, and England had monopolized the carrying trade of the world. In time of war what would happen? It might be thought that we should carry our own trade in our own vessels. Since the Declaration of Paris, however, there had been war in the United States, and a single Alabama drove the whole trade of the States into neutral bottoms. A merchant's goods would always be safer in a neutral bottom, and the mere difference of the insurance would induce the merchants of a belligerent State to ship them in neutral bottoms. What would be the result of a withdrawal on our part from the Declaration of Paris? That our enormous foreign trade, which was 30 times as great as in the days of Nelson, would be at the mercy of every South American Republic. ["Oh!"] Yes, England could not monopolize the principle, and if two American States went to war, they would have a right to search the whole merchant shipping of England in search of contraband of war. Was it for our advantage that hostilities, whether in Spain or elsewhere, should expose us to the exercise of the right of search by other Powers? No doubt the Declaration of Paris operated as a premium in favour of neutral Powers, and he was glad of it. It was a reward upon those who remained at peace, and a fine upon those who went to war. The conditions of warfare were very different from what they had been. Railway communication had wrought a great change. In old times many countries could only communicate with each other by sea, but now the trade could be transacted by land. The abrogation of the Navigation Laws had put an end to the coasting and colonial trade and to the rules of 1756. The hon. Member for the Isle of Wight did not deny that the Declaration of Paris was advantageous to England in time of peace. For 20 years we had derived all the profits, and had become the carriers of the world under this principle, and yet we were asked to repent of the obligations under which we had derived such advantages. He did not think that would commend itself to the House of Commons or to the English people. England derived great advantages from her maritime superiority and the courage of her seamen; but she derived still greater advantages from the moral strength belonging to a country that knew how to observe its engagements and maintain the stability of its policy. The hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Hermon) had referred to the late Lord Derby. He would, on the other hand, refer to the present Lord Derby, who now represented the Queen in her relations with foreign States. He occupied the same high position in 1867, when this question was brought before the House by the late Mr. John Stuart Mill. Lord Derby answered Mr. Mill; and what would be the position of the House of Commons and the country if, after declarations such as he was about to quote had been made by Minister after Minister belonging to both parties in the State, the House of Commons should now attempt to evade engagements of this character? The present Lord Derby, in 1867, being then Lord Stanley, said—

"The power to intervene effectually is a temptation to do so; and, if the Declaration of 1856 has prevented us from mixing ourselves up with Continental complications with which we had nothing to do, all I can say is that that is one of the best arguments I have yet heard in its de fence …… With regard to the subject gene rally, I entirely agree with the hon. Member in laying down the principle that it will not do to go on with a Declaration of this kind if we do not mean to act upon it. You are bound either to repudiate it at once, or to act on it when the occasion arises. …. The trade of the countries going to war, for the time only, but still for the time, passes into neutral hands; in other words, both the combatants suffer heavy loss, both are heavily fined, so to speak, for their breach of the peace, and the fine goes for the benefit of those who have continued to remain on good terms. … I think we have to look at the question as a matter of good faith and consistency. We have given a pledge, not merely to the Powers who signed with us, but to the whole civilised world. We have urgently and continuously invited other States to join in that Declaration; we have done so with very considerable success, and it would be hardly intelligible or in accordance with our position to turn suddenly round and change our policy."—[3 Hansard, clxxxix. 886–7–8–9–90.]

Some hon. Members thought that as this Declaration of Paris was not a Treaty we need not be bound by it. Our present Foreign Minister had, however, pointed out that this Declaration was not the act of the Executive alone, but had been repeatedly brought before Parliament, and on every occasion Parliament had refused to interfere and had practically given its adhesion to the Declaration of Paris. He would not think so meanly of one bearing the name of Stanley as to suppose that the Foreign Secretary, after holding that language in the presence of the House of Commons and in the face of Europe, could consent to repudiate that which he had declared England was morally bound to maintain. If the Motion of the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight was carried, Lord Derby, he was sure, would rather resign than give effect to it. He would detain the House no longer. The language he had read was far more deserving of attention than any he could command. It was worthy of the man, worthy of the office he held, and expressed the spirit which he ventured to think would influence the House of Commons in the decision at which they would arrive.

regretted that he could not say, with the hon. and learned Member for Oxford (Sir William Harcourt), that he had listened with satisfaction to the speech of the Under Secretary for Foreign Affairs. It would have been different if the Under Secretary had merely maintained that we had been right in not taking part in the Conference at Brussels, and that the present time was inopportune for a withdrawal of the Declaration of Paris; but he had gone much further than that, for he had defended categorically every one of the propositions involved in the Declaration. It remained to be seen whether other Members of the Government concurred in that speech; but the present First Lord of the Treasury, in March, 1862, pointed out how seriously the Declaration of Paris affected the maritime strength of England, and suggested that the Ministers of the day ought to consider by what means it might be altered. It was right that the goods of neutrals should be respected wherever found; but in assenting to the proposition that the goods of an enemy ought not to be seized on board neutral ships, they gave up a cardinal principle of England's power and greatness. The principle for which he contended had, except in certain peculiar cases and for exceptional purposes, been steadily adhered to from the earliest times down to 1856. It had been said that we ought not now, owing to the lapse of time, to withdraw from the Declaration. That was a most dangerous argument, for as time went on we should find ourselves more and more bound to abide by it. If we deferred withdrawal till the outbreak of a war it would be natural for foreign nations to say to us—"You have lulled us into a false security, and you have no right to take this step now." Now was the time—a time of profound peace—when we had a right to say to foreign nations—"We made a mistake some years ago; we are not now going to war; but we are determined to assert the old principle which England always maintained—namely, that we have a right to seize the goods of the enemy wherever they are found." He would ask hon. Members who said that enemy's goods should not be seized on board free ships whether they were also prepared to say that the enemy's ships themselves should not be seized? If goods should not be seized, why should merchant ships be taken? And if this were adopted we might as well cease to be a great maritime power. Whatever might be the result of the division, he trusted there would be no misapprehension on the part of other nations as to the fact that the great body of opinion in that House was in favour of the proposition that free ships did not make free goods.

supported the Motion. If the Declaration of Paris remained unaltered the effect upon our merchant fleet might be very serious. Of course, if we went to war there would be many cruisers of the Alabama class belonging to the enemy, and after a few of our vessels had been destroyed by them, merchants would naturally put their goods in the vessels of other nations, and shipowners would have either to lock up their ships in harbours at home or sell them to foreigners, as had been done in America. The result in the case of the United States was that they had now a very small fleet. It might happen, under these circumstances, that the country would be even more affected after the war than during it. There was a consideration also as to prize money. He did not say that naval officers joined the service for the sake of prize money; but probably most Gentlemen would agree with him that a large bag of prize money was not at all to be despised.

, in reply, said, he had not spoken disrespectfully of Lord Clarendon. What he said was that he could not comprehend how Lord Clarendon took the step he did of signing the Declaration of Paris. Under the circumstances, he was unwilling to press his Motion to a division. It was well known that a division did not always represent the opinion of the House.