The Sun.
London, England, 1863-06-30 00:00:00

RUSSIA.

Mr. HENNESSY asked the Under Secretary f„
Foreign Affairs whether any communication had been re-
ceived from St. Petersburg in reference to the recent
despatch of Earl Russell ?
Mr. LAYARD—AII I can say is that to the best of my

knowledge the despatches from England and France
have been received at St. Petersburg and presented, but I
am not aware that any answer has yet been received in

this country.

PUBLIC WORKS (MANUFACTURING DIS-
TRICTS) BILL.

On the order of the day being read for considering this
bill as amended,
Mr. BENTINCK said he wished to have replies to ques-

tions which he had put on a former occasion to the Presi-
dent of the Poor Law Board, but which he had not answered,
viz., whether the money proposed to be advanced would
be advanced on a perfectly good security; whether the
distress in the manufacturing districts was not caused as
much by over trading as by the want of cotton ; and thirdly,
whether the present measure would afford permanent relief
for the existing distress, or whether he anticipated coming
again to Parliament for further assistance, or resorting to
emigration ?
Mr. FERRAND would also like to know who would be
responsible, if the distress extended during the ensuing
winter, and was not provided for ?
Mr. VILLIERS said that, looking to the principle of
the bill, and that it met with the appoval of hon. members,
he probably did not enter so fully into the circumstances on
a former occasion as he otherwise should have done. The
question of security rested with the Public Works Com•

missioners, Thfy were satisfiEd with it, and he had not
the least reason to be otherwise. The security was one
year's available value of those districts, which amounted to
£5,000,000 annually ; and if the rates were not paid, the
security would be on the property itself. He did not think
_ _

it was his duty to inquire into the cause of the distress, but
only to satisfy himself of the fact. There was a proximate
cause of distress. The mills were stopped, and for the want
of cotton. As to whether it arose from over-trading
was not for him to inquire, and the hon. member for West
Norfolk had not ventured to define what he meant by over-
trading. Everything was prosperous till it was suddenly
stopped for want of material. There were no anticipations
of the distress till the outbreak of the American civil war.
The millowner seemed to be the incarnation of mischief in
the hon. member's mind when he spoke of over-trading;
but there must be more than the manufacturer concerned
if over-trading existed. The hon. member bad used the old
phrase of over-trading, but he had given them no explana-
tion. He (Mr. Villiers) had seen no instance of it, and he
looked forward to the revival of trade as soon as the raw
material could be obtained. The bill was a temporary bill
to meet temporary distress, and not as a panacea for the
evils. The amount and the continuance of the distress were
uncertain, but it was considered by competent persons that
the whole amount would be applied for, and a large number
of persons would in consequence be employed. And so far
from the whole of the money really being applied for, as had
been stated by the hon. member for Devonport, he could
assure the house that application had that day been made
by Blackburn, one of the 27 unions of the distressed dis-
tricts, for £104,000 to expend in public works. A great
number of the distressed hands would also be employed
this summer for harvesting, which would afford some re-
lief. There was not the least apprehension of a want of
funds for the support of the poor of the districts. What
they might do under inflammatory speeches he could not
say, but there was no cause to fear there would not be a
sufficient sum to meet the wants of the winter. He should
ask to continue his rating bill, and there was a large
amount of subscriptions in hand, and what was asked by
this bill was to give the people an opportunity of working
and obtaining their living. It would be impossible to serve
the people better than by passing this bill.
Mr. B. FERRAND said he based all his statements on
Mr. Farnall's information, and it would be unfair to charge
him (Mr. Ferrand) with having made exciting speeches.
Sir H. WILLO UGHBY said that when the new poor
law was under the consideration of the house the principle
affirmed was that relief should be given in workhouses
alone. He asked Lord Althorp whether, if anything hap-
pened in the manufacturing districts, they were to be so
treated, and received an answer in the affirmative, but, he
was happy to find that time had made such a favourable
change in this matter. He cordially approved of the bill,
though he regretted there was so much power given to the
poor law board, instead of the treasury, in handling public
money. He hoped the relief committee would not interfere
with the general action of the local bodies. This was not
to be considered an effectual measure, but it would likely
be beneficial as far as it went. • The security did
not attach to the property from its being put in the
alternative in the clause, "rates or property ;" and he sug-
gested an alteration to "rates and property." The house
could not be too cautious about the security to be taken
from private individuals, and he expressed an opinion that
provision should be made for requiring, in addition, the
security of the local boards.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that

those who supported the new poor law when it was first in-
troduced might also support this bill. The new poor law
came into' operation when the community was much demo-
ralised by out-door relief, and now that the principle was
thoroughly understood, he thought it might be relaxed un-
der the present pressure of circumstances. As regarded the
financial part of the question, he begged to state that the
Government did not intend to commence by the contraction
of any loan whatsoever. The money would not be provided
in the same way in which it was provided for the erection
of fortifications, in which case it was raised by loan, whereas
in this instance it would be provided by a charge upon the
Consolidated Fund. The hon. baronet seemed to think that

the proposal would involve some usurpation by the Poor
Law Board of the functions of the Treasury; but the fact
was that in this instance there would be a combination of
several authorities—the Treasury, the Poor Law Board, and
the Exchequer Loan Commissioners; and it would be most
inconvenient if the function of examining all the details of
the expenditure of the money was to be transferred to the
Treasury. The truth was, the major part of the authority
would rest with the Exchequer Loan Commissioners. It
would be for them to examine the nature of the security in
all cases, and he thought that the house would be disposed
to continue in their hands duties with which they had been
charged with very great advantage to the country for a pe-
riod of 3i) or 40 years. The Government, of course, would
look to the local boards for the reimbursement of the money,
but the property of the district would be responsible to the
local board.

Mr. R. KNIGHTLEY said that, although the discus-
sion in which they ware engaged might not have any great
point, it was so far useful that it postponed the attempted
robbery of the Irish Church, It seemed to him not unlikely
that this loan to Lancashire would share the fate of the
loan for the relief of Irish distress, and that, after the lapse
of a year, Parliament would be called upon to remit the
payment altogether.
Mr. SCULLY begged to inform the hon. member that
Ireland had repaid the famine loan ten times over. Whe-
ther the measure was generally right or wrong, there was
no doubt that Ireland had suffered immensely by the im-
position of free trade— (Oh, oh, and hear, hear)— and, be-

sides that, many millions had got into the pockets of Eng-
lish corn merchants through importing meal to Ireland in
the days of the famine. Then the imi osition of the income
tax upon Ireland had repaid the loan fifty-fold. In con-
clusion, the hon. and learned gentleman declared that Par-
li had 'become a mere debating club, and a very miser-

able one too—(laughter)—for the discussion of foreign
affairs ; and that Ireland need expect no relief in her dis-
tress, as she was entirely unrepresented on the Treasury,

Bench.

The report of the bill as amended was then agreed to,
and it was ordered to be read a third time to-morrow (this
day.)

BRITISH TRADE WITH MATANORAS.

Mr. PEACOCK desired to draw attention to the re-
peated seizure of English traders by American cruisers ;
and, with a view of eliciting frem the Government a de-
finition of what constituted illegal traffic on the part of
English traders. He was moved to take the subject up
in consequence of the extraordinary language held by
the Minister for Foreign Affairs in another place on
the 24th of April last, and which was to the effect that a
seizure was justifiable if the contraband character of the
cargo was indicated, and without any reference to the destina-
tion of the vessel. Now he (Mr. Peacocks) held that no
neutral vessel under a neutral flag, sailing from one neutral
port to another, was liable to be captured, whatever the
nature of the cargo. The only case in which such vessel
could be captured was where its papers were not in order.
The hon. member then went on to declare that he had no
confidence in the law as administered to the Adele. the
Pearl, the Dolphin, and the Will-o'-the-wisp, to establish
the conclusion that these courts were acting upon principles
quite new to the international law, and that vessels were
condemned simply upon presumptive evidence, without any
proof that they were intended to run the blockade. In con-
sequence of these decisions of the American courts, our
merchants had now to pay a premium "of six guineas, in
addition to the ordinary rates, to cover the extra risk—and
the consequence was that English commerce was being gra-
dually transferred to foreign bottoms. In conclusion, the
hon. member moved for papers connected with the adjudi-
cation of the American prize courts at Key West upon Eng-
lish vessels.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL said the motion was
made in too general a form to permit of the Government ac-
ceding to it without interfering inconveniently with pend-
irig communications. As to the hon. member's criticism on
the observations of Earl Russell, it appeared to him that
the hon. member was not aware of the precise position
of the port of Matamoras. Matamoras was a frontier town
of Mexico, lying on one side of a river, on the opposite of
which was Texas; and in consequence, it became very easy
for vessels having on board contraband of war to run the
blockade, although there was nothing at all in their papers
to allow that such was their intention. Looking, therefore,
to the decisions of the American Courts, it was quite im-
possible to say that contraband of war on board a ship
bound for the river Matamoros must be assumed as in-

tended to be landed on neutral ground. Of course, if the
cargo was bona fide intended for Matamoras the doctrine
laid down by the hon. member was perfectly correct ; and,
indeed, it was distinctly admitted by the prize courts of the
United States. It was very easy for persons on this side of
the water to try an appeal to the House of Commons, be-
fore.the legitimate appeal authorised by the law of nations
'vw.... the American court of appeal—was had recourre to ;
but such a proceeding was not calculated to create unbounded
confidence in the merits of these cases, and he was bound
to remind the hon, member that the court of appeal in Arne-

rice had hitherto ranked very high in the jurisprudence of
the world. The system of procedure in the American prize
courts was exactly the same as in the English courts; but
one advantage of their system was that, in the first instance,
all questions must be determined by evidence obtained ex-
clusively from the ship herself ; that was to say, from the
papers on board the ship, and the testimony of the ship's
officers. On the other hand, as a kind of counterbalance to
that advantage, where the circumstances raised a strong
presumption that there was something disguised or irregular,
the judge might on further evidence condemn the ship, and
in some cases where the circumstances were of a gross char-
acter, he might proceed at once to condemn without further
evidence. That was the practice of Lord Stowell during the
French war, and the records of our prize courts abounded
with such instances. The case of the Adela was, he be-
lieved, the only one mentioned by the hon. gentleman in
which the judgment was open to exception, as unlike such a
judgment as we had a right to expect from the court. The
hon. member stated that the judge condemned the ship be-
cause he was aware that the parties intended to appeal, but
the Government could find no confirmation of that state •

ment. It was to be regretted that no reason had been
given for that judgment; but it was impossible to treat as
a violation of international law that which had happened
in prize courts in all nations from time to time. With
regard to the case of the Pearl, if the hon. gentleman
imagined that touching at Nassau, where the intention
was to break the blockade, would exonerate the ship, he
was in error ; but it was quite obvious that in her case the
court put its judgment on the ground that there was suffi-
cient reason 1 o raise a strong presumption which, unless re-
butted, enabled it to condemn the vessel. In the case of the
Dolphin, there were on board the ship a very large quantity
of arms, which were not entered as arms but as hardware,
and although she was ostensibly consigned to a firm at Nas-
sau, yet a letter was found on board which the prize court
held justified the presumption that her ultimate destination
was either to break the blockade, or to land her cargo on
some part of the Confederate States. He did not undertake
to say that that was a right presumption, but the principle
was one which was to be found in every volume on the sub-
ject of international law. It was well known that an exceed.
ing large contraband trade was carriedon by way of Nassau
and the Confederate States, and as English ships monopo-
lised that trade, it was not surprising that, in their case, the
rate of insurance should have been so increased. The hon.
gentleman also charged the Government with having aban-
doned the doctrine of damages, and cited two cases in sup-
port of the allegation. But why had not her Majesty's Go-
vernment demanded compensation in those instances?
Simply because it would have been undignified to insist
upon that which they knew they were not likely to get ; but
still more, because they felt that if a like demand were made
upon this country under similar circumstances, they would
not accede to it. They would claim exemplary damages in
all cases where the circumstances justified the claim; but
they would not seek to relax the code simply because that
relaxation would, for the moment, be in favour of them-
selves. (Hear, hear.)
Lord R. CECIL admitted that the law of prize courts
was such as had been laid down by the honourable
and learned gentleman, but maintained that peculiar sus-
picion attached to those of America, when, as they knew,
American judges had delivered their judgments under the
pressure of fixed bayonets. They knew that the supreme
court of America two years ago was appealed to for the pur
pose of enforcing the provisiors of the American constitu-
tion, and that the judges could not pronounce the judgment
their consciences dictated, because the soldiers of President
Lincoln were at the door, and obliged them to bend the law
to the wishes of the executive. He therefore thought they
should not attach to the decisions of the American prize
courts that authority which they would attach to the deci-
sions of such courts in any constituted State, and we should
protest against their assumption to make prizes of vessels
which were peaceable traders. He maintained that the
law, as laid down in the condemnation of the Pearl, was
altogether novel, and that no case could be found to sup-
port or justify it. He complained that her Majesty's Go-
vernment took no means to inform themselves of the pro-
ceedings of those courts, and that they were always ready,
at the instance of Mr. Adams, to subject the English mer-
chant to the pressure of English law. In the case of the
Alexandra there was one peculiarity of that law which the
hon. and learned gentleman was instrumental in bringing
out in a striking degree. No costs could be given against
the Crown, and they, nevertheless, heard that the hon. and
learned gentleman, in carrying out the decrees of the Ame-
zican Minister Minister, had resolved not to be content
with the decision which had been given against him, but
to wear out the defendant by carrying him to courts of ap-
peal, where he hoped to gain by the boundlessness of the
Government purse that which he could not get by the fair
interpretation of the law. They saw nothing of that acti-
vity in putting down Federal enlistment in the south-
west of Ireland, nor any attempt to inquire into the causes
of that emigration which had recently increased 300 per
cent. In conclusion, the noble lord inquired for information
concerning the reported detention at Liverpool of the Gib
raltar, on taking two of Blakeley's guns on board as part of
her cargo, and declared that if it proved true it would be but
another instance of that gross partisanship under which
British merchants were now and had been suffering at the
hands of their own Government. (Hear, hear.)

Mr. COBDEN said he felt himself in rather a novel
position when he appeared even by implication to be taking
a side in opposition to the merchant and shipowner, whilst
the noble lord who had just sat down was the champion and
advocate of those interests. With regard to commercial
blockades, and it was well known that he had no sort of
sympathy for such proceedings, he thought that such a
mode of carrying on warfare between two belligerents, by
which a greater amount of injury was inflicted upon the in-
nocent neutral than upon the belligerents themselves, could
be objected to on the ground of natural justice. But who
were the principal authors of that system of warfare ? Un•
doubtedly the public men of this country. Under these cir-
cumstances he could not say a word against the blockade
as it was now carried on in the United States, it being the
public men of England itself win principally upheld the
system, in the belief that, when we became belligerents, it
would be useful and necessary to ourselves. (Hear, hear.)
He granted that, if a vessel were bona fide bound for Nassau,
an American cruiser had no right to stop her; but every-
body knew that there was a great contraband trade carried
on by way of that port, and it did not become them, know-
ing that England had a monopoly of the trade, to come
down to the house and complain of the inconvenience which
it incidentally cccasioned the innocent merchant. He was
not going to be such a purist as to say that capitalis! s
might not carry on a trade attended with such risks, but
when pursued in contravention of the Queen's proclama-
tion, it aid not become the house, aware of all the facts,

to complain of the inconvenience which naturally grew out
of such trade, and which might affect legitimate commerce.
The noble lord contended that the decisions of the
American prize courts should not be respected be-
cause the judgments of the American courts were
given under the pressure of bayonets. He was as dili-
gent an observer of what was passing in America as the
noble lord, and he had not seen that the supreme court
of Washington had' given a judgment in favour of President.
Lincoln because the court had been surrounded with armed
men. He asked the noble lord to reflect before he made such
statements, and to furnish the house with proofs of them.
(Hear.) The noble lord had alluded to the judgment in the
case of the Alexandra. He was not going to say a word
about the law of the case ; but this he should tell the noble
lord, that, if that decision should be confirmed as interna-
tional law, it would be far more injurious to the interests of
our commercial and shipowning community than to all the
rest of the world. The shipowners of Liverpool were
awakening to a consciousness of the danger to which they
were exposed, for it amounted to this, that a neutral power
might build ships of war for a belligerent, provided only
that that power kept the armament and the ship apart until
a distance of three miles from the coast had been reached.
If, therefore, England were at war with Brazil or with Ire-
land, provided only she were acknowledged as a belligerent,
it would be competent for the shipbuilders of Boston and
New York to build vessels of war for either, and England
would have no ground of complaint. If the law as laid down
in the Alexandra case were to be established as interna-
tional law, it would simply be inviting a return to the
anarchy of the middle ages, when every war between two
States became a universal war. He had thought the object
of the Foreign Enlistment Act had been to assist in stop-
ping that system, but it appeared now that we were to lose
that safeguard for the future. The noble lord stated that
we were not dealing impartially, because we allowed enlist-
ment for the Northern States in Ireland and elsewhere.
That was a most gross—not conscientiously so, but still a
gross and ignorant misrepresentation, because if the noble lord
had read the correspondence between Mr. Adams and Earl
Russell he would have seen that when the noble earl men-
tioned the subject, Mr. Adams denied the allegation and
challenged proof, and Earl Russell was obliged to admit
that he had none in his possession. As for the '30,000 emi-
grants from Ireland, they were easily accounted for by the
high rate of wages now ruling in the Northern States, and
by the recent homestead law by which the American Go-
vernment gave every head of a family of emigrants 160 acres
of land for merely the price of the survey, viz., 3d. per acre,
or 408. for the whole. As the American Government had
over 1,000 millions of acres to giveaway, there was of course
enough to empty not only Ireland, but all Germany as well.
He hoped he should not hear thesevague aspersions against
the Northern States repeated in that house.
Mr. S. FITZGERALD regretted those continual dissen-
sions, because they had hitherto resulted only in making
British Ministers appear anxious to support a state of things
which would be highly injurious to British commerce. The
bon. gentleman opposite (Mr. Cobden) appeared in a very
extraordinary light, because he had for some years past ad-
vocated the universal extension of trade ; but now he was
compelled to come forward and advocate the straining of
belligerent rights to a point against ourselves to which they
had never been pressed before. The hon. gentleman said
that when shipowners entered upon blockade running spe-
culations they did so at their own risk, and deserved no
sympathy when they were caught. That might be, but the
serious part of the complaint was that those repeated and
unjust attacks upon our shipping interfered with legitimate
commerce. It was notorious that our trade in Matamoras
(which was a neutral port) had vastly increased, and yet the
hen, member for Rochdale called that trade disreputable.
Mr. COB DEN—I said it was not reputable—nor is it—
in the face of the Queen's proclamation.
Mr. S. FITZGERALD said the hon, gentleman was