The Sun.
London, England, 1859-07-09 00:00:00

it would be unadvisable for the Government, and very un- '
wise for any member of the house to enter into discussion
on this subject. (Hear.) Our disposition must be the same
as that of the late Government, viz., to take any opportu-
nity afforded us of "being the medium of restoring peace."
(Hear, hear.) We may not take the same view in regard
to what would be the most favourable time for restoring
peace ; but with regard to the object we are entirely agreed
with them. (Hear, hear.) The hon. gentleman, surely
very unnecessarily., referred to a despatch of mine written
some years ago, and communicated to the Court of
Russia. The fact, with regard to that despatch, was that
the late Emperor of Russia thought it advisable that
there should be a concert between this country and Rus-
sia with regard to the future state of Turkey, supposing
the Government of the Sultan to be destroyed. We did
not think fit to enter into any such concert, and the Empe-
ror of Russia was told so in a despatch that was afterwards

-
in substance reported to the Russian Minister at this Court.
The Emperor of Russia accordingly wholly abandoned that
proposition, and, therefore, how anybody, even in the ex-
treme of factious misrepresentation, can say that that course
of conduct on my part had anything to do with the break-
ing out of the war with Russia, I cannot understand.
(Hear.) I now come to the question that has been put to
me with regard to Mexico, Mexico, most unfortunately, has
been divided into two envious parties, both of whom have
been guilty of many outrages on British subjects. It ap-
pears that the British Minister is considered favourable to
one side, and that the Minister of the United States is con-
sidered favourable to another side ; but whatever may be
the truth of these representations it is undoubtedly true
that both from the one side and from the other, both from

the Central party and the Constitutional party, British
subjects have suffered great outrages. Their property has
been taken from them, and in certain cases where it has
not been given up they have been brought to be executed,
and in one instance it required the greatest efforts on the
part of the British Minister to save the life of a proposed
victim. (Hear.) As to the outrages that occurred in the
first instance the late Government employed a squadron to
procure redress, and this house is aware of what followed.
I can only say that Captain Dunlop did his duty with great
zeal and great discretion. But, unfortunately, since the
arrangements then made, there is a fresh arrear of outrages
to be complained of, and the serious question to be consi-
dered is, what should be done to protect British subjects
against them. Undoubtedly it is the duty of the Govern-
?lent to protect them, and I may say that no effort will be
spared to effect that object. (Hear.) With regard to Mr.
Otway, he has lately received leave of absence, in order that
he may come to this country and make his defence against the
charges which have been brought against him. He himself
considers those charges totally unfounded, but I regret to
say that he has not entered so much into particulars as to
enable me to lay papers on the table which will show that
he is in the right and the British merchants in the wrong.
In conclusion. I have only to repeat that for the protection
of British property as much will be done as can possibly be
done in the circumstances. (Hear, hear.)

---
Mr. BOWYER remarked that the statement of the noble
lord, that it was the duty of the Government to give such
advice to the German Powers as might prevent the theatre
of war from being extended, was a very specious and plau-
sible expression. In one sense everybody would consent to
it, but it was difficult to see to what extent the meaning of
that expression might not be carried.
Lord J. RUSSELL—I did not say that advice had been
given to the German Powers ; what I said wrs that we had
made a communication to the Court of Prussia.
Mr. BOWYER understood that the despatch in question
stated the view which the Government took of the course
which the German Powers ought to pursue. Now, Ger-
many was not an island like England, and its different
States were placed in a different position from that which
we occupied. The German Powers had seen with consi-
derable alarm a revolutionary war carried on by France in
conjunction with Piedmont—a war fostered by appeals to
nationalities and by attempts to stir up the subjects of in-
dependent States, with which neither France nor Sardinia
had any cause of quarrel, to revolt against their Sovereigns.
He was favouroble to the principle of Italian nationality,
having always felt that the presence of Austria in Italy
was a great difficulty; but when he saw that the war was
one of avowed and open conquest, and that it was carried
on in a manner quite new in the modern history of Europe,
he did not wonder at the anxiety and alarm felt
by Germany at the progress of the enormous and
apparently irresistible army of France. Instead of
saying, " Wait a little, !gentlemen ; your turn to be
devoured by France will come in due time," he thought
the Government would act wisely in leaving the Germais
to. mind their own business. They understood very well
what their own interests required of them, and we, who
occupied geographically an isolated and therefore compara-
tively safe position, ought not to use our influence in pre-
venting the German Powers from taking that course which
might appear to them expedient for the purpose of putting
some check upon the aggressive and conquering policy of
France. He believed that any attempt to invade England
would be defeated in the most effectual manner, but he did
not feel as confident as many persons that our turn might
not come ; on the contrary, he was persuaded that Austria
had been, to a great extent, fighting the battle of England
as well as her own. (Cries of "Oh," and " Question.")
He looked with hope at the new state of things which had
been brought about in Italy by the success of France—
(" hear, hear," and a laugh)—but he warned the Govern-
ment, when they talked about sympathy with France, to
remember that when France had overcome Austria and
waged a successful war—probably next year—against Ger-
many, the time might come when we should have to stand
upon our defence, because France had to gratify her spirit
of hostility towards England, and, above all, to wipe out
the recollection of Waterloo. (Cries of "Oh l")
Mr. LYALL asked the Secretary of State for War whe-
ther the Government had had under their consideration
Bessemer's economical process of manufacturing steel, and
whether there was the mtention of substituting that metal
for iron to any extent in the manufacture of guns for the
artillery and ordnance.
Mr. S. HERBERT replied that a proposal had been made
to Mr. Bessemer to the effect that if he would send in a
block of iron from which a gun could be constructed, the
experiment should be made ; but the Government had de-
clined to become ironmasters, or to adopt a process which
had not been thoroughly tested. If the invention combined
economy with efficiency, there were, no doubt, plenty of
capitalists who would take it up ; but the Government
were unwilling to incur the expense of experiments of which,
if they failed, the whole loss would fall upon the country,
while, if they succeeded, the gain would be reaped by Mr.
Bessemer alone.
Mr. DISRAELI—I do not wish to revive the discussion
which seemed to be terminated by the observations of the
noble lord the Foreign Secretary, for I am sure that the
noble lord having stated that the correspondence with
Prussia is still going on the house will not press for its pro-
duction, but at the same time I am bound to state that the
description which the noble lord has given us of his own
despatch is one of a somewhat alarming character. (Hear,
hear.) Giving advice is interference, and if you profess a
policy of non-intervention and at the same time indulge in
giving advice to foreign Powers you will eventually find
yourselves involved in engagements which you never con-
templated. (Hear.) The noble lord has quoted a despatch
of Lord Malmesbury, which fairly described the general
policy of the late Government, showing that they were in
favour of a strict and impartial neutrality, but at the same
time that they felt they were free to avail themselves of any
favourable opportunity to mediate in the interests of peace.
The noble lord gives his adhesion to a principle which I
belive ne gentleman will be inclined to impugn. But there
is in the despatches of Lord Malmesbury another para-
graph much more germane to the matter which has been
brought under our notice this evening than the very
general passage to which the noble lord has referred in
vindication of the course pursued by the present Govern-
ment. In a despatch of Lord Malmesbury to Sir James
Hudson, dated the 20th of May, I find the following sen-
tence :
" Her Majesty's • Government have done their utmost,
within the bounds of friendly representation, to calm the
excitement prevailing in Germany, but they have not felt
themselves called upon or authorised to dissuade the Ger-
man States from taking such measures as those States con-
sidered to be necessary for the maintenance of their several
interests ; for they could not assume the responsibility of
even morally guaranteeing them against the eventualities
of -the Italian war."
Nov, if you sanction a policy whieh gives advice to neutral
Powers, and in consequence of that advice those Powers
take a Particular course which may prove to them a disas-
trous one, you will find that you are involved in what is
very happily and accurately called at least a moral gua-
rantee as the consequences of your advice. (Hear, hear.)
I think, therefore, the House of Commons will do well not
to favour the'advice which the noble lord seems anxious to
give to those Vowers at like ourselves,
present occupying,
the position of neutral States. (Hear.) I felt it my duty
to call attention to the difference between the quotation
made by the noble lord and the principle laid down in the
quotation which I have read, and which appear 3 to me of
such importance that the house ought jealously to watch
over its observance. (Hear.)
Lord J. RUSSELL--I do not wish to enter again into
this discussion, but I think it right to say that the right
hon. gentleman has taken far from a correct view of the
course which her Majesty's Government have pursued.
The motion for adjournment was then agreed to.
SUPPLY.
THE DEFENCES OF THE HUMBER.

On the order of the day for going into committee of
supply,
Lord HOTHAM, in asking the Secretary for War his in-
tention respecting the defences of the Humber, said that
in 1854 a report was made to the Master-General of the
Ordnance by a committee of officers appointed to inquire
into that subject. These officers a colonel of artillery, a
colonel of engineers, and a captain in the navy, after ex-
amining the locality, made certain recommendations, into
which, for an obvious reason, he would not enter, but he
might state that few of them had been carried into effect.
Whatever was desirable in 18.54 for strengthening the de=
fences of this river was not less desirable now, and he was
anxious to know, therefore, whether his right hon. friend
intended to carry out the recommendations of the repori in
question.
Mr. S. HERBERT said that in 1858 a further in-
quiry was made into this subject, owing to the impractica-
bility of carrying into effect one part of the proposals made
by the committee of 1854. At one time, he believed, it had
been rvoposed to give an armament to the citadel of Hull.
That, however, would have been an ineffectual protection,
and the plan was abandoned. A battery carrying six guns
complete on the right bank of the river.
His however, now asked for •
His predecessor in office (Gen. Peel) had as a consi-
derable sum for the defence of commercial ports, and if a
portion of that vote could be applied in strengthening the
defences of the Humber, it should certainly be so applied.
(Hear.) If, however, a large number of guns was to be
mounted for the defence of mercantile ports, he thought the
inhabitants of those places should at least contribute the
men to work those
noble lord would consider this a fair bargain. (Hear, hear-)
guns--(hear, hear)—and he hoped the
Gen. PEEL thought this would be a good opportunity
for considering the suggestion he had made the other even-
ing respecting our coast defences. £300,000 was to be ex-
pended in defending commercial harbours and_ of this
.£12,600 was to be voted each year, so that 24 years would
thus be required to complete these fortifications. Now, it
would be far better to decide what fortifications were abso-
:utely necessary) and to complete theca at once, raising the

money, if requisite, and spreading the repayment over a
certain number of years. (Hear, hear.)
OUR FOREIGN POLICY.
Lord J. RUSSELL—A question of some importbnce has
been raised with regard to the responsibility which the Go-
vernment is said to have incurred in giving advice to foreign
Governments; and it has been said not only that we ought
not to advise other States to refrain from increasing their
armaments—the fact being that we have given no advice of
the kind—but that we ought not to counsel those States to
remain at peace, and not to extend the ravages of war.
Now, I find the following advice given by Lord Malmes-
bury to the Confederation. It is contained in a despatch
to Sir A. Malet, dated May 1, 1859 :
" I have received your telegram of this day, by which it
appears that a motion will probably be made to -morrow in
the Diet, calling upon the Confederation, without any
casus faderis, to make common cause with Austria. Her
Majesty's Government trust, however, that the answer
which I immediately returned to you by telegraph may
have arrived in time to prevent any such ill-advised step
on the part of the Confederation, and that the protest which
I have instructed you to make against its adoption, and the
warning that I have desired you to give, that if Germany
should at this early stage involve herself, without a treaty
obligation, in the present war, she would have no assistance
to expect from England, and that without such assistance
her coasts would be exposed to the ravages of hostile fleets
in the Baltic, will deter the Diet from adopting so preci-
pitate a course, which would at once extend to Europe the
ravages of war, which every friend of humanity must desire
to see confined, if possible, to the country in which it has
broken out."
(Hear.) To state, therefore, that Lord Malmesbury had
never given advice to any foreign Power to maintain an
attitude of neutrality, and not enter into war is certainly
not to put a fair interpretation on the language which that
noble lord has used. (Hear, hear.) Ido not think that I
have employed language so strong as that which was di-
rected to the German Confederation requesting it not to
take part in the present contest in Italy, and warning the
Germon States that if they did so the coasts of the Baltic
would be ravaged by a foreign Power. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. DISRAELI—The advice which Lord Malmesbury
give in this despatch is very frequently given by him in the
eourse of the papers which have been laid before the house,
and in none of them more strongly than in that from which
I last quoted. He there says, "Her Majesty's Government
strongly declare that Germany should not be influenced in
arriving at a decision then under the consideration of the
Diet by any hops of succour from this country." Now, that
is stronger language than any which the noble lord opposite
has quoted ; but I apprehend that the noble lord himself
has written a despatch to the Court of Prussia, in which he
has recommended to that Court the adoption of a certain
line of policy. That hon. members will perceive is
a very different thing from giving Prussia to understand
that if she entered into war she must not expect the assist-
ance of England. The course which the noble lord has
taken, in short, I do not conceive to be consistent with the
observance of a strict and impartial neutrality ; while all
that Lord Malmesbury did was to impress upon Prussia the
conviction that if she engaged in hostilities she must do so
on her own responsibility. (Hear, hear.)
Lord PALMERSTON—The despatch of Lord Malmes-
bury which has been quoted by my noble friend does not
confine itself to an intimation to Prussia that if she went to
war she must not count upon the support of England, but
tells her she must reckon on something else—namely the
ravage of her coasts in the Baltic. (Hear, hear.) The charge
which was made against my noble friend in the early part
of this discussion was that he had given advice to the Ger-
man Powers. He simply gave advice to Prussia, dissuading
her from entering into the war which was then being waged
in Italy ; but the charges made being that my noble friend
had given advice to the German Powers, he proves fromthe
Blue-books that Lord Malmesbury did not merely give ad-
vice to the Diet to abstain from war, but pointed out the
course it ought to pursue, and warned it of the dangers
which would arise if it pursued a different line of policy
from that which the late Government had shadowed out.
The late Government protested against the steps which the
Diet was going to take, and I do not find fault with them
for having done so. I think they acted wisely in the course
which in that respsct they pursued, but then it is going too
far to turn round upon us because we have, although only
in a modified degree, adopted a similar policy. (Hear.) Of
all men the late Ministry are the last persons who ought
to have found fault with our proceedings in this parti-
cular. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. DISRAELI—The noble lord who has just spoken
seems to labour under the impression that in warning Prussia
against ravages in the Baltic we were speaking of the pos-
sible policy of England.
Mr. B. COCHRANE said that nothing could more com •
pletely breathe a spirit of neutrality than the language
which Lord Malmesbury had employed. (Hear, hear.)
LAW OF LANDLORD AND TENANT (IRELAND).
Mr. HASSARD asked the late Attorney-General for
Ireland (Mr. 'Whiteside) what course he proposed to take
with respect to the bills for the adjustment of the relations
subsisting between landlord and tenant in Ireland, of which
he had given notice when a law officer of the Crown.
Mr. WHITESIDE said the late Government had done
all in their power to bring about a settlement of the ques-
tion of landlord and tenant in Ireland, but now that they
were no longer in a position to deal with it satisfactorily,
theywere forcedto resign it into the handsof those to whom
it had been confided by a vote of that house. (Cheers.)
DOCKYARD COMMISSION AND DOVER CON-
TRACT. _ _

Mr. A. KINGLAKE asked the Secretary to the Admi-
ralty
when the report of the Dockyard Commission, ap-
pointed by the late board, would be laid before Parliament?
Sir F. BARING observed in the supplementary esti-
mates a vote for the Lover contract. If the house voted
the money they affirmed the new contract, and he should
prefer waiting until he had seen the evidence before he ap-
proved it. (Hear.) Would the Government postpone the
vote until the Contract Committee had reported on the sub-
ject of that particular contract ?
Lord C. PAGET said, in answer to the hon. member for
Bridgewater, that the report of the Dockyard Commission
was printed, and was now before the commission for cor-
rection. It would then be laid before the Board of Admi-
ralty, and it would be for the Admiralty to lay it on the
table. But, before doing so, he believed the Admiralty
wished to receive some remarks upon the report which the
Surveyor to the Navy desired to make. As soon as these
matters were settled the report would be laid before Parlia-
ment. With regard to the packet vote, he thought it very
unlikely that they would reach that vote to-night, and if it
were the wish of the house there would be no objection to
postpone it.
Sir J. PAKINGTON said he was apprehensive, from
the answer of the noble lord, that some considerable delay
would take place before the report of the Dockyard Com-
mission would be laid on the table. It was one of the three
commissions which he mentioned to the house early in the
session. The other reports which he had promised had been
produced, and he regretted that before he left office he had
been unable to see completed this very important report on
the expenditure of large sums of money expended in the
neighbourhood of our dockyards. If he understood the an-
swer of the noble lord, the report was to be considered by
the commission—[Lord C. PAGET—Corrected—referred
to the Surveyor, and then sent back to the Admiralty. He
was afraid that the inference was, that a considerable time
would elapse before Parliament could see the report, and he
ventured to express a hope that no unnecessary delay would
take place. (Hear, hear.)
The motion that the Speaker leave the Chair was then
agreed to.