The Sun.
London, England, 1854-05-27 00:00:00

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT.

•
HOUSE OF LORDS—(YESTERDAY.)
The house met at 5 o'clock. •
THE AUSTRIAN AND PRUSSIAN TREATY. .
The Marquis of CLANRICARDE inquired whether the
Government were prepared to lay on the table the offen-
sive and defensive treaty lately concluded between Austria
and Prussia. It seemed to him, according to the accounts
in the newspapers, to be very ambiguous in its terms, and
to be'capable of an interpretation in favour of Russia. He
also wished to know the precise object of the English Go-
vernment in sending an expedition to Greece, and whether
there was any truth in the rumour that a treaty had been
concluded between Russia and Persia ? He was afraid
that our envoy to Persia, a man of great experience as a
public servant, was no longer at his post ; but it was of
the highest importance that a person of experience, cha-
racter, and intelligence should be entrusted with the task
of defending British interests in Teheran. at this mpment,
The Earl of CLARENDON—In answer to the first
question of my`noble friend, respecting the convention that
has been.lately concluded between Austria and Prussia, I
have only to say that the negotiations which were carried
on during a considerable length of time between those two
Powers were kept a profound 'secret from this and other
Governments, and the treaty was only communicated to us
confidentially after the ratifications had been exchanged.
That treaty has since been communicated to the conference.
at Vienna at the same time that the Convention entered into
between her Majesty's Government and the Government of
the Emperor of the French and the Ottoman Porte was
communicated to the conference. Thatcommunication took
place on the 23d of this month, and a protocol annexing
the two conventions together was signed on the same day.
That protocol has not yet been received in this country,
but as soon as it is it shall be laid on your lordship's table.
With respect to Greece, I am prepared to lay before the
house the fullest information which we can give on the sub-
ject. and I am only sorry that the extreme pressure of
business in the Foreign-office has prevented me from sooner
laying those papers before your lordships. They are very
voluminous, and it is the desire of her Majesty's Govern-,
ment that they should be quite complete. I hope in the'
course of three or four days—certainly in the course of
next week—they will be produced ; and I think your lord-
ships will then see that there have been -ample grounds for
that measure of coercion which has been reluctantly
adopted towards Greece by her Majesty's Government, in
concert with the Government of France. (Hear, hear.)
With respect to Persia, I would, in the first place, say that
Col. Shiel is not withdrawn from Teheran, but that he is
absent for the recovery of his health. Mr. Thompson our
Chargé d'Affaires at the Persian Court, is a person of great
experience, and of great zeal and intelligence, and we have
every reason to bo satisfied with the manner in which
he has conducted the affairs of her Majesty's Government
there during the unavoidable absence of Colonel Shiel. I
have no reason to believe, from the intelligence which we
have received either from Persia or from India, that the
treaty to which my noble friend has alluded, or which has
been mentioned in the papers, has been concluded between
Russia and Persia. The last engagement we know of as
having been entered into by Persia was a declaration of
neutrality—a neutrality based on the ground of a determi-
nation by Persia not to vex or harass Turkey in her war
with Russia ; and for that purpose Persia has suspenled
all claims, some of them most just, which she has on Tur-
key. We have heard that the Russians have advanced to
a small place on the Sirr, but wo have no reason to believe
that and treaty has been concluded between the Czar and
Persia, or between him and Bokhara. and Khiva.
CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY.
Lord LYNDHURST presented a petition from the Uni-
versity of Cambridge, praying that the revenues of the two
suppressed canonries in the Cathedral of Ely might bo ap-
plied to the foundation of theological professorship
was de
s.
The Earl of ABERDEEN said the suggestion -
serving of attention, though other claims had to be consi-
dered, such as the augmentation of small livings; but it
should receive consideration.
The Committee on the Railway and Canal Traffic Regu-
lation Bill was, after a rather lengthened discussion upon
various points, postponed till Tuesday.
LANDLORD AND TENANT (IRELAND) BILL.
The Law of Landlord and Tenant (Ireland) Bill was read
the third time ; and on the question that it do pass,
• The Earl of CLANCARTY moved the omission of. the
37th clause, which gave retrospective compensation for
improvements made by tenants. - The noble earl contended
• that this provision was unjust to landlords, and unneces-
sary for the effectual operation of the bill.
The Earls of DONOUGEIMORE and DESART ,opposed
the motion, and on a division the numbers were—
For the motion lO
Against it
Majority against •
• -

The clause was consequently retained, and the bill was
;hen passed.
LEASING POWERS (IRELAND) BILL.
The Leasing Powers (Ireland) Bill was read the third
time ; after which,
Lord MONTEA.GLE moved that, with respect to the
grant of agricultural leases, the period of 21 years be sub-
stituted for 31 years.
After a debate, the house divided, and the motion was
carried by a majority of 3 ; the numbers being 17 and 20
The bill was then passed.
MANNING THE NAVY BILL.

The Duke of NEWCASTLE said that this bill had been
taken the other day without any discussion. He had now to
propose that any objection which any member took to the
bill should be taken before going int 6 committee ; 'and he
would now proceed to state very shortly the main objects
of the bill. First of all, he wished to state that some misap-
prehension appeared to exist with relation to the title of the
bill. It was supposed that his right hon. friend at the head
of the Board of Admiralty intended to adopt some new
mode of manning the navy by the introduction of this mea-
sure. But the bill, in point of fact, was a pure bill, though
the "Manning the Navy" was the old title which it had
al ways borne, and which it was thought better to adhere
to in the present instance. It had always been the custom at
the beginning of a war to pass some such measure as the pre-
sent for the regulation of the disposal of the prizes taken in
war. It was unnecessary to state to their lordships that,
without an act of Parliament, and without the consent, of
course, of the Sovereign, all prizes became the property of
the Crown. It had, however, been customary of late years
that the prizes should be ceded to their captors rather than
carried to the public account. For this purpose, at the
commencement of every war a proclamation was issued by
her Majesty, and an act of Parliament was passed to regulate
the proceedings which took place in the adjudication of
prizes and in the distribution of the money the proceeds of
those prizes. As their lordships were aware, the practice
with regard to the army was different. In that case an
order of council was sufficient • and he might say hero
that he was in communication with his noble friend the Pay-
master of the Forces on the subject, and that as soon as
the present measure was passed he would be in a condition
to lay before her Majesty the measures which they meant
to propose with regard to the army. Up to the present the
greatest discrepancies had existed with regard to the army,
and it was very desirable that some more uniform plan
should be adopted. With regard to the measure for the
navy, it was always the practice to vary the bill according
to the circumstances of the war in which the country was
engaged. In the present war there wore circumstances
which differed from any former wars, and this necessitated
certain alterations from previous measures. to which ho was
about to draw their lordships' attention. In the first place,
this was the first war in which, at its commencement, they
had ever been in such intimate relations with an ally as they
now were with France. That, of course, created a difference
with regard to the regulation of prizes, and that very morn-
ing a paper had been circulated and laid upon theirlordships'
table, containing the copy of- a convention passed between
her Majesty and, the Emperor of the French upon the sub-
ject, and a corresponding alteration was made in this bill.
Then there was great fault found with the operation of
former prize acts, which were attempted to be obviated by
the present bill—the great delay that took place in the dis-
tribution of the prize money. A third complaint, and one
made with great justice, was the enormous waste which,
especially during the last war, took place in various parts
of the world, especially in our colonies, in the proceeds of
the prizes. The next alteration to which he would refer
was an omission. They were aware that a proclamation
was issued at the beginning of the war, stating that no
privateers would be allowed, so that the clauses in former
bills which applied to thew wore now wholly unnecessary.
There was in the present bill the usual provision with re-
gard to bounties ; but to give effect to the bounty clauses
the further intervention of Parliament would be necessary,
as Parliament must vote the sums which were to be ap-
plied- as bounties. He had now gone over the principal
provisions of the bill as rapidly as possible, for he wished
to reserve to himself to answer any observations that might
be made to the measure. The first clause to which, in pro-
bability, objection would be taken, was the fifteenth. The
provisions of that clause were new in substance as in form,
and the alterations were made in consequence of the enor-
mous waste which in former wars had taken place in the
money that ought to have gone to the captors. Ho was
afraid that some highly respectable gentlemen, navy agents
in this country, felt that the clause implied a stigma upon
their profession. Undoubtedly, when alterations of this
kind took place, and parties who had heretofore enjoyed
the exercise of certain rights and privileges were deprived
of them, it was natural they should feel that some stigma
was cast upon them. However, he could say with regard
to those gentlemen who had lately addressed a memorial
to him upon the subject, that such was not the intention
of the Government. At the same time; they did feel that
the duties devolving upon navy r gents were very anoma-
lous, as they acted both as bankers and accountants. It
was proposed, therefore, no longer to devolve these duties
upon the agents; that instead of providing that the prizes
should be handed over to the navy agents, and that they,
after selling them and deduct theirheir owls- expenses and
commission, should pay over mainder to those who
werec lasa ;
some
were entitled to them, it was now proposed that the first
class cf duties should devolve upon certain public officers,
upon the admiral, marshal, or tho cqllector of customs in
the colonies. He had already stated that no stigma was
but
had taken place which inflicted very severe losses upon the
intended
nottine nsuods etlbe
solventbe rememberedtohrr respectableow ltphoalt the
in
ns .noltalhvceylrasas:gaeensnattsislae:vr thereeea several failures
captors. The losses in the West Indies alone during the
last war amounted to the enormous sum of two millions.
(Hear.) He thought, therefore, that their lordships would
the more readily acquiesce in the alteration now proposed,
because it svgs a boon more.to the men than the officers.
In the late war it was the practice of the navy agents to
make advances to the officers nearly to the whole amount
of the sum to which they were entitled, so that they had

no further interest to expedite the sale. But to the sailors
no advances were made—they lost, therefore, by the long -
delays that occurred in payment, and very frequently the
failure of the agents was one consequence of the long delay
that occurred in settling the account; and further provision•
was introduced into this bill for the sale ofall captured ships
bypublic auction. In this way all temptation to favour
private interests was removed ; and he believed it was an
understood fact that whenships weresoldby the Admiralty
they brought more at a public auction than in any other
way. They.provided, therefore, by this bill that a larger
sum should be distributed to the captors, that greater
security should be obtained for its custody, and that less
delay should occur in its distribution; and still further
security was given to the captors in the provision that the
money should be paid not to the private bankers of the'
agents, but into the publio purse. Ho had reason to
believe, from the note he had already referred to as having
received from the navy agents, that they *bre under an
impression they were to be deprived of all remuneration
for their services. But that was an entire error on their
part. By the 2d of George IV., chap. 20, section 29, 2i
per cent. was allowed as commission to the navy agents
from all the officers and crew, while the captain was called
upon to pay 3 per cent. more, making 5a per cent. upon
his share. Now, this act was in no way affected by the
present bill. There was another act, the 53d George
chap. 93, which was also not affected. By this act the
captain and crew were enabled by a majority to appoint a
navy agent, which met the objections of those who signed
the petition that was presented to their lordships by Lord
Brougham, who seemed to apprehend .that there was no
longer any power to appoint a navy agent. He might here
mention another alteration in this bill, that by the 33d
clause an appeal was given to the Judicial Committee of
Privy Council, instead of to commissioners of 'appeals, asin
the case of the last war. An objection wail raised the other
night that this bill had a retrospective effect.
The Earl of HARDWICKE—That is in the other bill.
The Duke of NEWCASTLE was certainly not aware that
any such provision existed in this bill, but he was about
to say that even if it did it -would only apply to one or two
cases. He would not detain their lordships longer, reserv-
ing himself, as he said, to answer any objections that might
be made.
The Earl of ELLENBOROUGH said that, important as
it certainly was to devise a good mode of keeping and
dividing the prizes when captured, he confessed that there
was in his mind a consideration more important still—to
whom these prizes ought to belong. With regard to the
navy agents, all he would say was that formerly they had
not only their commission of 2i per cent., but they de-
rived still further advantages from the keeping of the
money for so long a tithe in their own hands. As that ad-
vantage was now to be taken from them, while their
trouble was not to be lessened, he thought it was but just
and fair that their commission of 2i per cent. should be
increased. With regard to the bill itself, he was- sorry
that their lordships had dispensed with the discussion of
the bill on the stage of the second reading, for suggestions
might have been made which would have led her Ma-
jesty's Government to prepare amendments for the com-
mittee. That was now too late, and he was afraid the
bill would become an act of Parliament in a very imper-
fect state, and likely to inflict great injury ; for nothing
could be more injurious than that at the commencement
of a war Parliament should ,so legislate with respect to
prizes, as to run the xisk of creating misunderstandings
and heartburnings between the two services. It must
be remembered that this—morn especially in the Black
Sea, which was the great theatre of operations—would
be carried on by the army and navy in conjunction, and
therefore regulations ought to be framed to meet this
new state of things. But what was the state of the
case ? They had seen arrangements entered into as be-
tween the English and French fleets—but then it only-
concerned the fleets ; and no mention was made-of an 'ar-
rangement as between the armies and the fleets. It was
most strange, too, that although provision was made for a
division in the case of the co-operation of the allied fleets,
none was made for the co-operation of the allied armies,
or even for the co-operation of our own army. Suppose
the case of a combined operation of the allied fleets and
armies for the purpose of taking up a position in respect
to trte port of Sebastopol, by which the Russian fleet were
either destroyed or compelled to go out to meet the block-
ading ships—could it be said that the army, which had
co-operated in this result, should have no share in the cap-
ture ? Yet no provision was made for giving prize to the
army. The next clause related to the capture by her Ma-
jesty's ships of a fortress —and so careful had the gentle-
man who drew the bill been, in order to be precise, that
he actually provided that it should be a " fortress upon
land." The whole property was to belong to the captors.
Here, again, there was no provision for the allied fleets,
for the allied army, or for our own army. The bill cer-
tainly contained a clause which provided for conjoint ope-
rations ; but that clause had reference only to our own
army, and not to the allied army. Indeed, in these respects, '
he must say that he did not recollect to have ever seen a
bill of so important a character drawn so carelessly. He
must also draw attention to the provisions'in the 6th clause.
It provided that the officers and crew of any of her Mu.
jesty's ships who took any fortress upon land, or any ves-
sel in any river or creek belonging to or defended by such
fortresi, should pave prize. He wished those condi-
tions to be noticed. The river in which ships were
taken must be defended by a fortress, and the fortress
must be taken. No provision was made for the case where
the fortress was not taken, but where the ship was cut out ;
and iu order to make the ship a prize, she must be in a
river or creek belonging to or defended by a fortress. So
that-the safest place for enemies' ship to go into would be
an undefended river or creek, because there-would be no
inducement for our seamen to follow them, except public
duty, inasmuch as they would not be prizes except they
were taken in a river or creek belonging to or defended by
a fortress. The next clause, the 7th, supposed a conjoint
operation of her Majesty's army with the navy, not merely
against a fortress, but against a possession ; and here a
different rule applied. A different rule applied with re-
spect to prize to the fleet in a large operation than when
the fleet acted only against a fortress. All these were
matters of great importance, and he hoped her Majesty's
Government would take them into serious consideration.
The rule which had prevailed in the navy with respect to
prize was entirely different from that prevailing in the
army ; but he apprehended that no attempt would be made
to alter it as far as concerned the army. In the army, all
the forces participated in, the pike whose position could be
understood to have contributed to the capture, however
distant they might be from the place where the capture. was
effected. It was so held in the Deccan, in Scinde, n Spain,
and at Waterloo, and, in fact, it was the genera i l
law of
the army. With respect to the navy, it was mudh to
be regretted that no attempt had been made to render
the rule clear, in order that suits might be avoided.
To. this end two points ought to be considered—
the matter of fact and the matter of opinion. The mat-
ter of fact was, whether the ship- was seen, at the time of
the capture, by the captor, and by the vessel taken ; the
matter of opinion was, she was seen under circumstances
which tended to intimidate the vessel taken and to encour-
age the captor. There was no security sviltever in any
case, except where the ship was actually near, that the
question might not have to be submitted to a court of jus-
tice. Now it was most undesirable that brother officers
should thus be compelled, as it were, to resort to a court
of law with each other in order to settle their claims; and
in order to avoid this evil some clear role ought to be
established. Suppose the principle of distribution of prize
which prevailed in the army was established, and there
was a combined operation of the army and the navy to get
possession of a place or fortress. If the place were cap-
tured by the army whilst the naval part of the force were
not in sight of the fortress at the time of capture, that naval
force would not, under the provisions of the existing pro-
clamation, share with the military in the advantage s de-
rived from the capture. Now it was most impolitic to
permit the existence of such a state of things. Again, i
a ship were taken, head money was allowed at the rate of
51. a man. It was more difficult to take a fortress than a
ship; but if a fortress were taken no head money was al-
lowed. Such were some of the omissions in the bill. Of
course, their lordships had not the power to supply them ;
but he hoped the Government would adopt the same rule
in both cases—that where a fortress was taken the rule
should be exactly the same as where a ship was taken.
But ho must add that it was certainly •a subject of
groat doubt whether, in a war so peculiar as tho present,
it- was advisable to adhere strictly to the old naval prim
ciple in respect to the right of prize. In the Baltic and in
the Black Sea the enemy's flea was confined to port. The
port was blockaded by the like of-battle ships,an whi
rich
blockade enabled all the smaller vessels, without y s
or danger to themselves, to take prizes. The smaller ves-
sels then got the prizes ; but the men serving in the line-
of-battle shipsw, blockading the ports, and who had the
hardest work,would get nothing unless the enemy's fleet
should happen to venture out. in that case, in the event
of victory proving on our side, which be could not doubt,
they would obtain prize money. But the hardship of the
case was that the smaller vessels would also share in the
prize, although they might not assist in the battle. This
was an anomaly which ought to conic under the conside-
ration of her Majesty's Government ; and he suggested
that, considering the peculiarity of the war, the strictness
of the rule ought to be modified. The bill w navy ill foi
" the more effectual manning of her Majesty's” and
the object was to get men to man the large ships. But it
said to the men who were asked to man those ships,
" Prize money you shall have none ; the prize money
shall all belong to the smaller ships, because they alone
will have the opportunity of obtaining it." In the last war
there was danger in attempting to take prize, here there
was none at all, for the smaller vessels took it, while the
line-of-battle ships did the real work. Of this, however,
he was sure, that as docombine perations of the army and
navy were contemplated, it as most desirablo that in
respect to all combined operations, there should be only
one rule—that the naval man should not feel that he
was fighting by the side of the soldier, and exposed to
equal risk, without the chance of getting anything, while
the soldier was to share in the prize. Such a state of
things was contrary to equity, and it could not bo allowed
to exist. In conclusion, he expressed his conviction that
material alterations were required in the bill, in order to
give satisfaction to the two services, and for the purpose
of avoiding misunderstandings.
The Earl of FIARDWICKE said he was not going to
advocate the cause of the navy agents or the prize agents,
but the cause of the officers of the navy, as ho was ex-
tremely apprehensive that, under the system laid down by
the bill, prize-money would not be so carefully looked after
nor so quickly paid as under the old system. Under the
old system, prizes were dealt with by agents appointed
under au act of Parliament. These agents were elected by
the captain, officers, and crew of each ship ; and there was
the greatest advantage to captors in having agents upon
whom they could rely in protecting their interests. This
bill, however, totally ignored and set aside this description
of persons, and handed the captured vessels over to the
Marshal of the Admiralty Court or the Queen's Proctor,
who had the power of dealing with the captors' interests
as they might think fit. Ile had been told of a case which
had just occurred of a Baltic prize having been carried
into Hartlepool, where a sum of 5001. was offered for the
ship. This offer was ' not accepted, and the vessel was
brought to London, by which a diminution in the value
took place to the extent of 2001. Under the old
system, the agent would have ascertained the best
market, and have closed with the offer of 5001. Thus
a loss had been incurred by the captors from their not
having had an agent in this country. The noble duke said
it was a mistake to suppose that under the new system
prize agents would be deprived of the advantages which
they possessed. There was nothing, however, in the bill
to show that their remuneration would not be reduced;