The Press.
London, England, 1857-02-28 00:00:00

NEUFCHATEL.

Lord PALMERSTON, in reply to Mr. Kinnaird as to
when the conference on the Neufchatel question was
to meet, and whether there was any hope of the
matter being brought to a speedy and satisfactory
termination, said:—

No specific time has yet been fixed for the conference,
but I believe that all the powers united with the French
Government have been invited, and have assented to attend
the conference. With regard to the second branch of the

THE PRESS.

hon. gentleman's question, all I can say is that the Swiss
Government have shown the greatest possible moderation
by releasing the prisoners ; and I think there can be no
doubt that the King of Prussia, when the conference is
opened, will show that he is animated by the same spirit,
and that the result will be a satisfactory arrangement.
THE BUDGET.
ADJOURNED DEBATE.

Mr. JAMES APOREGOR rose, and resumed the de-
bate upon the budget. He argued that if the house
was satisfied with the scheme of finance proposed for
1857-58 the income tax must be perpetuated, which
the country would not bear. The estimates he
thought extravagantly high, and he should certainly
support Mr. Disraeli's amendment.
Lord J. RUSSELL said the ground taken by Mr.
Glatbtone was, not that there was no great remission
of taxes, but that there hail been a departure from
the policy of abolishing a vast number of small
duties and simplifying the revenue. The principal
merit of the budget of Sir R. Peel, Lord John ob-
served, was that it removed a great number of pro-
tective and differential duties, and asserted the just
principles of tree trade. Had the Chancellor of the
Exchequer departed from those principles? Had he,
having been a free-trader all his life, inaugurated a
new policy? Nothing of the kind. He (Lord Jahn)
did not agree with him as to the duties upon fire
insurances and upon paper, holding that all these
Excise duties were of a most injurious nature. He
was desirous that the income tax should termi-
nate in 1800; but he did not see that the Chancellor
of the Exchequer had interposed any obstacle in the
way ; he should say that his proposals were not only
not opposed to the budget of 1853, but were
specially calculated to carry that budget into effect.
At the same time he hoped, when the house was in
committee, the Chancellor of the Exchequer would
adopt a different scale of tea duties, so as to mitigate
the pressure upon that article. With respect to the
vote in the committee of supply, he thought it would
be the duty of the house to look most carefully and
vigilantly into the charges for the public establish.
ments. As the groat Crimean war was now over, and
he trusted the Persian and Chinese disputes were
upon the point of being settled, he did not see why
arrangements which will be good in 1858 and 1850
should not be adapted to 1837, and why we should
not now come to a resolution as to what our peace
estimates shall be :

I shall listen (said the noble lord) with great attention
to the statements that may be made by the Ministers of
the Crown with regard to the estimates they propose. I
believe, as those estimates now stand, there is no doubt
that if they were to be followed for the next two years the
calculation of the right hon. member for Buckinghamshire
would prove substantially correct, and that we should have
a deficiency of nearly 5,000,0001. in those years.

It was a question fairly raised, and he could not but
think, with reference to the expenditure of 1848, that
some reduction of the estimates was practicable, and
that the house was entitled to call for a peace estab-
lishment. He was ready to go into committee of
ways and means with the Chancellor of the Exche-
quer, and to allow that, keeping in view the policy
and justice of putting an end to the income tax in
1860, he did not require a large concession of indi-
rect duties in 1857.

Mr. BENTINCH was not prepared to support either
the motion of the Chancellor of the Exchequer or
the resolution of Mr. Disraeli. He could nut con-
sent to vote money until he knew for what purpose,
and he moved that the debate be adjourned, with the
ulterior object of suspending the decision of the
house until after its decision upon the army, navy,
and ordnance estimates in a committee of supply.
Mr. Moscgrox MILNER thought the Government
were rather prepared to carry out their economic
reductions with so much energy and vigour that he
feared there was a tendency to abandon some of the
improvements originating in the war. He was satis-
fied with the budget :
If the remission of the taxes on tea and sugar should in
some degree be postponed, the people would recognise
that this postponement arose not front deficiency of good-
will or ability, but solely from the occurrence of those
awful circumstances through which the country bad so
gloriously passed within the last few years, humbly sub-
mitting to the decrees of Providence, and thankful that
they had at last obtained a satisfactory peace.
Sir J. TYRELL supported the motion of Mr. Ben-
tinck.

Mr. WILKINSON supported the Ministerial project
of finance.

Mr. LIDDELL supported the resolution of Mr.
Disraeli, because if the Chancellor of the Exchequer
was sincere in his calculations he aimed at the same
result, and if the calculation was incorrect, its effect
would be to induce the Chancellor of the Exchequer
to modify his plans.

Mr. J. G. PHILLIMORE supported the budget.

Mr. WHITESIDE considered that the
arrangements required revision. The budget was
inconsistent with " sound finance," and, with respect
to the tea and sugar duties, opposed to "common
honesty,"

197

Sir F. BARING cordially supported the Government
scheme of finance. He gave them credit for having
accompliThed the utmost amount of prudent reduc-
tion, and yet maintained the revenue of the country
on a sound basis.

Mr. IVALeoLE insisted upon the expediency of
settling the expenditure of the country before going
into committee of wars and means. He should
support Mr. Disraeli's resolution, for the object of
the resolution was to abolish the income tax in 1860
by a wholesome reduction of the expenditure, and
the first object of the committee of ways and means
was to reimpose the income tax for 1858, 1859, and
1860, before the house knew what was to be the
expenditure of those years. It was not only in the
military and naval establishments that a reduction
of expenditure ought to be looked for, but still more
in our civil departments. He was not for undue
reductions; but when the fact was that our expendi-
ture was now 10,000,0001. more than that required
four years before the war commenced, it was im-
possible, he said, to deal with the subject properly
unless the reasons of this expenditure were analysed.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer had declined to
say that the remission of the income tax in 1860 was
probable or possible, and these alarming words
should induce the house to adopt Mr. Disraeli's
resolution. No budget could be satisfactory to the
country unless it secured the proper adjustment of
revenue and expenditure, and the fulfilment of a
pledge solemnly given.
Mr. CARDWELL observed that those who were de-
termined to enforce economy should not vote for a
dilatory motion, but should go into a committee of
ways and means, where, when asked to vote in time
of peace duties which pressed upon the poorer
classes of the community, the house might give effect
to their views of economy by refusing to impose those
duties, replenishing the Exchequer without im-
poverishing the people. He should vote for going
into committee.

Mr. GIBSON believed that if Parliament sanctioned
the expenditure of the present year it would lay a
foundation for a deficiency in future years and lead
to the gradual subversion of the policy of 184.2. lie
was for maintaining as part of the ordinary revenue
of the country a fair and moderate income tax, be-
lieving it to be the keystone of a free commercial
policy. If the house should be firm in rejecting this
budget ho had no doubt that the (government would
reconsider it and bring in one founded upon a re-
duced expenditure.

Mr. NiwnectArE would not consent to vote the
proposed duties for three years until he had had an
opportunity of sifting the expenditure. He should
support the motion for adjourning the debate.
Sir C. WOOD objected that the motion of Mr.
Disraeli, of an abstract resolution stopping the house
from discussing the budget in committee, was a waste
of time; the Government had not by their own free
will adopted the course which had been pursued, but
in deference to the general wish of the house ex-
pressed on all sides. [" No, no," from Mr.
Disraeli] :

I am certainly much mistaken if the right hon. gentle-
man himself did not sac that it was indispensable that
there should be a financial statement from the Chancellor
of the Exchequer before we proceeded to consider the
estimates.

Mr. Disasym : I am quite sore that I never expressed
any wish of the sort. lam quite astonished at the Govern-
went for having taken this course. The recommendations
which they received to adopt it proceeded from a noble
lord and a right hon. gentleman behind them, not from me.
I am not aware that any gentleman on this side of the
house rec)mmended this course. It is one of which I en-
tirely disapprove, and I am certain I never at any time sug-
gested it to the Government.
Sir C. WOOD: Weil, then, it was pressed on us by my
noble friend the member for London and by the tight hon.
member for the University of Oxford.
Mr. GLADSTONE : f beg the right bon. gentleman to
except me. I never pressed upon the Government any
such course.

Sir CHARLES Woon said that his ears then had
very much deceived him. The right hon. baronet
then proceeded at great length to review Mr. Glad-
stone's arguments, and concluded by declaring, with
regard to the estimates for the present year, he
believed it not to be possible to reduce them :LI, titer.
He believed they would be smaller next year, but he
would not pledge himself. The Government would
do all they could, but he repudiated any contract or
engagement.

The house divided upon Mr. Bentinck's motion
for the adjournment of the debate, when there
voted,—
For the adjournment 25
Against it . 477
Majority against Mr. Bentinck's motion 452
The house then proceeded to divide on Mr. Dis-
raeli's amendment, when the numbers appeared,—
For the amendment
For going into committee
Majority for Government
The house accordingly resolved into a committee
of ways and means.

19

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER then formally
moved a resolution, that the WY on income above
Litit. a year should be 7d. in the pound for the next
three years, and on incomes below that amount 31
in the pound.
The resolution having been read a first time,
Mr. DISRAELI moved that the chairman report
progress.

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER did not object,
and the house resumed.
TRANSPORTATION, ETC., RILL.
Sir G. GREY postponed the second reading of this
bill until after the conclusion of the financial debates
and the discussion on the army and navy estimates.

TESTAMENTARY COURTS (IRELAND).
Mt. J. FITZGERALD, in answer to Mr. Deasy, stated
that it was the intention of the Government during
the present session to introduce a measure for the
reform of the testamentary• courts in Ireland.
The Commons Inclosure Bill passed through com-
mittee. The lonian Subjects' Commissions Bill,
and the Public Health Supplemental Bill (1857),
were read a third time and passed. The Lighting
of Towns (Ireland) Act Amendment Bill was read a
second time.

HOUSE OF LORDS.-TrESDAY.
HOSTILITIES AGAINST CHINA.

The Earl of DERnv, having presented a number of
petitions protesting against the recent proceedings
at Hong Kong, moved the following resolutions :
That this house has hear,' with deep regret of the inter-
ruption of amicable relations between her Majesty's sub-
jects and the Chinese authorities at Canton, arising out of
the measures adopted by her Majesty's Chief Superin-
tendent of Trade to obtain reparation for alleged infrac-
tions of the supplementary treaty of the Bth of October, 1813.
T.iat in the opinion of this house the occurrence of
differences on this subject rendered the time peculiarly
unfavourable for pressing on the Chinese authorities a
claim fur the admittance of British subjects into Canton,
which had been left in abeyance since 1819, and for sup-
porting the same by force of arms.
. .

Phut in the opinion of this house operations of actual
hostility ought not to have been undertaken without the
express instructions, previously received, of her Majesty's
Government, and that neither of the subjects adverted to
in the foregoing resolutions afforded sufficient justification
for such operations.

The noble earl in eloquent terms invited the horse
to dismiss from their minds every consideration con-
nected in the slightest degree with party ties or
political obligation, and to consider the subject he
brought under their notice in a judicial and impar-
tial spirit. They were aware that proceedings of a
most violent character had occurred at Canton
Not only is the trade stopped not only are the
goods of our met chants at this moment sequestered to the
extent, I bel.•eve, of something like 1,50.1,000 dollars—not
only are all commercial operations put a stop to, but at
this moment, without any warrant from the Crown, with.
out any declaration, you are in a state of actual war with
China—(Hear, hear)—and that war is carried on with a
degree of aggravation and severity which do not uivally
accompany civilised warfare. You have had seizures of
merchant junks, you have had the capture and destruction
of the forts of a friendly power, you have had a walled, but
not a fortified, city battered with cannon, and stormed
through what is termed a practicable breach ; you have had
a whole fleet of war junks seized by the superior power of
this country; you have had private residences fired upon
by order of a British admiral—( Hear, hear)—you have had
a defenceless town bombarded and shelled by British
men-of-war. t Hear, hear.) I ask your lordships, is this
a state of things which you can justify to yourselves, which
Parliament can justify to the country, or which can be
passed over in silence without demanding explanations, if
they can be given, from the Ministry? and if no sufficient
explanation be given, then I call upcn your lordships to
stamp this st.tc of things with your strongest reprobation,
sod to denounce such conduct as unworthy of officials of
the British Crown.

The question to be decided was whether the cause
justified those events, and the first and chief point to
be siuled was whether the lorcha, the Arrow, was a
British vessel within the meaning of the treaty,
an I legally entitled to carry the British flag.
Now by the 9th and 17th articles of the supplementary
treaty of the Bth of October, 1843, it WWI provided
that any Chinese offenders, being in the colony of
Hong Kong, or on board a British man-of-war, or on
board a British merchant ship, were not to be seized
by the Chinese authorities themselves, but should be
demanded trom the British Consul, and by him be
handed over to the native authorities. On the Bth of
October last the affair of the Arrow occurred, and
undoubtedly if that vessel was strictly and honestly a
British vessel, the seizure of two persons on board
her suspected of being guilty—as they subsequently
were proved to have been—of acts of piracy, was a
violation of the treaty, inasmuch as they ought to
have been demanded of the British Consul, and not
taken by force. The question therefore was, whether
the Arrow was a vessel which came within the sense
of the treaty, or, according to any reasonable or fair
construction, was she a British vessel ? He con-
tended, on theeauthority of Mr. Block, the Danish
Consul at Hong Kong, whose explanations appear at
p. 134 of the China Blue-book, that tho Arrow was a

THE PRESS.

China built ship, captured by pirates, recaptured by
the Chinese, sold afterwards by the Chinese, and
ultimately bought, owned, and manned by Chinese;
and this was the British merchantman It was an
essential characteristic of a British merchant ship
that she must be wholly owned by British subjects—
that was, by natural•born subjects or those that had
become such by naturalisation. Now the Colonial
Legislature of Hong Kong in March,lBss, passed an
ordinance for the provisiJn to all vessels of certifi-
cates of registry. This ordinance was rejected by
the home Board of Trade, as repugnant to the laws
of England, for it could not have been passed except
under the provisions of 17 and 18 Viet. cap. 104, which
did not come into operation before May, 1855, and
though authorised by the Secretary of State in
Decembe:, 1855, it did not arrive in the colony till
1858; it had never to this day been confirmed by the
Queen in council, or proclaimed iu the colony ac-
cording to Act of Parliament ; and in point of law
was just so much waste paper :

You will say, perhaps (observed the noble earl), that these
are technical ties. They are ILA technicalities. They are
matters of substance and matters of importance. You have
dispensed with the checks which Parliament thought fit to
impose upon the exercise of a most dangerous power by the
Colonial Legislature, and we are here discussing the
question as it it were a criminal indictment against the
Chinese for violating the treaty. I have told you that the
treaty would not be violated unless the Arrow was a Iftitish
vessel, and that it was not a British vessel. But look at
the substance of this colonial ordinance, and let us see
whether it is one which ought to be approved by those pro-
fessing any consideration for the rights of an independent
Government. Grant that it may be proved possible and
legitimate to give to colonial ships a register for the purpose
01 trading to Hong Kong. Allow that within your own
limits you may confer what privileges you think fit. No
man will venture to contend that you had a right to confer
such a privilege upon Chinese, not being naturalised Eng-
lish subjects, in opposition to the inalienable rights pos-
sessed over them by the Chinese Government. These
Chinese had never abandoned, if even they can abandon,
their allegiance to Niue. They had never taken the oath
of allegiance to England; they had never become natu-
ralised subjects of this country. They were day by day
carrying on a coasting trade in the Chinese waters, and
what did you do? You pass an ordinance in Hong Kong
which says, in utter abrogation of Chinese rights, these
Chinese subjects shall be absolved from their natural alle-
giance; they shall be at liberty to trade here and there,
elrry on what trade they please, laugh to scorn the Chinese
officials who attempt to arrest them in their unlawful
courses, pleading. forsooth, the protection of the British
flag, and that they possess a colonial register. Now, would
you venture to pass such an enactment with regard to any
nation that had the slightest balance of power with your-
selves ? (Hear, hear ) Apply the case to any European
country. Would you dare to pass au enactment relieving
the vessels of subjects properly belonging to that country
and trading upon the coast of that country from any lia-
bility to its laws? ( Heir, hear.) Unless you are pre.
pared to justify such an instance as this—unless you are
prepared to say that this ordinance is not only good in law
but is sound in justice, you cannot maintain that there has
been any violation of the treaty, you cannot hold that this
is iu any sense of the word a British vessel.
But, supposing the Arrow to have been a British
vessel, had she at the time of seizure a British flag
actually flying on board, and, if so, was it legally
flying ! He contended that, whatever doubt there
might be as to whether the flag was flying in the
Arrow at the time of the seizure of the crew, there
could be no doubt that the Arrow had no legal right
to carry that flag, and in support of that view he
adduced the two following statements of Sir J. Bow-
ring allowing that the licence bad expired before the
seizure. In a letter dated Hong Kong, October 11,
to Consul Parkes, Sir J. Bowriug says:—

It appears, on examination, that the Arrow had no right to
hoist the British dig; the licence to do so expired on the z:th
of September. from which period she has not been entitled to
protection. You will send back the register to be delivered to
the Colonlal-office.