The Sun.
London, England, 1861-07-13 00:00:00

THE *SUN„ LONDON, SATURDAY EVENING, JULY 13, 1861.

IMPERIAL PARLIAMENT•

HOUSE OF LORDS_YESTERDAY.

--
T e LORD CHANCELLOR took his seat on the woolsack
at fiv e o'clock.
VRANSIIISSION OF BRITISH GOODS TO
CANADA.

In reply to the Earl of CARNARVON,
The Duke of NEWCASTLE said that he had placed
himself in communication with the Foreign Office and the
Board of Trade, but he had not received information which
would enable him to give an answer to the question of the
noble lord.

clause limiting tho time to three months for which any
schoolmaster might be suspended.
The next amendment to the same clause was then taken
I into consideration.

The remaining clauses were agreed to, and the bill was
ordered to be reported.
IRREMOVABLE POOR BILL.
The committee resumed the consideration of this bill,
and the provisions moved on a previous occasion by Sir J.
Pakington to be added to clause 9—" Provided also that

extra parochial places which have heretofore paid no con-
tributions to the common fund of the unions in which they

are comprised shall notwithstanding anything herein con-
tained, be hereinafter exempt from such contributions."

Mr. HENLEY moved that the chairman report progress.
Mr. VILLIERS and Sir G. GREY resisted the motion.
After some conversation the committee divided—
For the motion 33
Against it 115
Majority

The motion was therefore lost.
Mr. KNIGHT thought it would be unfair to proceed
with.the consideration of Sir J. Pakington's proviso, the
right hon. baronet being absent.
Mr. PEACOCKE thought the proviso required further
consideration, and moved that the chairman leave the chair.

The committee divided—
For the motion .. 24
Against it lO4
Majority —BO
The motion was lost, but it being now four o'clock the
sitting was suspended.
At six o'clock the house resumed
TERRACE OF SOMERSET HOUSE.
Mr. SLANEY asked the First Commissioner of Works
if permission would be given to open the terrace at the back
of Somerset-house for respectable people to walk there, at
such hours and under such rules as should be thought
right, according to the recommendation of the Committee
on Public Works in 1833, and if there was any prospect of
a public walk or open ground being made and kept in the
south-east of London, near Bermondsey, or in Southwark,
as suggested by that committee ?
Mr. COWPER said that every public place in London
which would afford a pleasant view of the river ought to be
turned to the best account, that the terrace of Somerset-
house was a place of that description, and that it would be
exceedingly desirable if it were thrown open to the public.
But there were objections made to that, in consequence of
the occupation of Somerset-house, and those objections
could not be well obviated. With regard to the second part
of the question, he had been well pleased to witness the de-
light which Battersea-pack afforded the public, and would
be gratified still more if another park could be opened in
the south-east of London. but he was sorry to say there
were no funds at his disposal, and he could hold out no
promise that it would be effected.
INDIAN FINANCIAL STATEMENT.
In reply to Mr. KINNAIRD,
Sir C. WOOD said he was at present unable to namethe
day on which he would make his financial statement with
regard to India.
REVISION OF THE STANDING ORDERS.
Col FRENCH asked the chairman of the Standing Orders
Committee if, after the experience of the plan for facilitating
public business'in the House of Commons recommended by
the select committee during this session, it was his intention
to move for a committee to revise the Standing Orders.
Col. W. PATTEN said he had not been directed by
the committee on Standing Orders to make any motion on
the subject tow hich the question referred. He had con •
suited with the right hon. baronet the member for Carlisle
and other hon. members, end he believed the general im-
pression was that the plat for facilitating public business
had net been as yet sufficiently tested. As far as experience
had gone it worked, in some respects, very favourably. The
taking of supply on Tuesday last, for instance, had been
productive of beneficial results, and he believed that there-
commendations generally of the committee would tend to
promote public business. Under those circumstances he
would not take upon hinmelf to move for the revision of the
standing order.
AMENDMENT OF CHURCH RATES BILL,
Sir C. DOUGLAS aided what course the hon. member
for Preston intended to pursue respecting his bill for the
amendment of church rates, which stood for the 24th inst. ;
and whether, after the opinions expressed on the with-
drawal of a similar bill ea the 10th inst., he would perse-
vere in moving the second reading at so late a period of the
session ?

Mr. E. ESTCOURT said it was not the intention of his
hon. friend the membe• for Preston to proceed with the bill.
INDUSTRIAL AND PROVIDENT SOCIETIES
BILL.

Mr. SLANEY stated that it was not his intention to pro-
ceed with this bill in the present session.
TARIFF ARRANGEMENTS OF BELGIUM.
Mr. W. FORSTER asked the Secretary of State for Fo-
reign Affairs the cause of the delay of the Belgian Govern-
ment in applying the new tariff arrangements between
France and Belgium to this country. He stated that the
operation of the present arrangements was most injurious to
England, and that the delay of the Belgian Government in
applying the new tariff was a subject requiring the imme-
diate attention of the noble lord the Secretary for Foreign
Affairs. The duty imposed upon me imporLabi.....r a 3.6-
lish woollens was higher than Belgium imposed upon the
fabrics of other countries. England had a right to expect,
at the hands of the Belgian Government, fair and impar•
tial treatment, and a mode of dealing founded on principles
of justice.
Mr. PAGET expressed his regret at the advantages
offered to France by the Belgian Government over those
extended to England.
Sir F. lIEYGATE quoted illustrations of the difference
between the tariffs so far as French and English goods were
concerned. He feared that English trade with Belgium
would become almost annihilated unless some change was
made by the latter country.
After a few words from Mr. NEWDEGATE,
Lord J. RUSSELL said that in the early part of the year
the Foreign-office w*s informed by the Belgian Government
that the latter was negotiating a treaty of commerce, and an
assurance was given that whatever terms were agreed upon
England should share in the advantages. The Belgian
Government had declined bringing the matter before the
Chamber this session because there was no chance of a law
being passed in so short a period. He considered the con-
duct of the Belgian Government as extremely ungrateful to
the Government of this country in return for the liberality
with which they had been treated.
SCHLESWIG HOLSTEIN.

Sir H. VERNEY rose to call the attention of the house
to the correspondence ie the affair of Denmark and Holstein
of 1860 and 1861. He thought that the subject, as bearing
on the preservation of the peace of Europe, was one of
great importance to this country. In this country there
was no feeling of hosti.ity to the Danish Government, and
the British Government was called on to mediate, and
perhaps it was more in the power of the noble lord than
of any other man to bring this question to a settlement.
He ventured to assert that the difference in Schleswig-
Holstein arose from the weakness of a political party in
Denmark. The war of 1849 and 1850 was terminated by
the German Bund, which restored to the King of Denmark
his duchies, while the King in his turn conceded a great
deal to the people of the duchies. He complained, how-
ever, that the promises then made had been repeatedly
broken. The hon. gentleman proceeded to quote at length
from the Blue Book in support of his statement. He
thought he had shown that great oppression had been ex-
ercised by the Spanish Government towards the German
population of holstein. In the debate which took place
some nights ago on the subject, it was plain that the Treaty
of London was not ccnsidered binding, but he hoped the
noble lord, in replying to his remarks, if he should reply to
them, would favour the house with his opinion on that
point. It certainly was stated—and that, too, very de-
cidedly—that the 'rectify of London had been abrogated as
between England, France, and Russia, in consequence of
the Russian war. As the effect of the treaty would be to
place a Russian prince on the throne of Denmark, in the
event of the death of its present possessor, he hoped the
noble lord would not lose sight of that, because such a re-
sult would be very injurious to all German interests, and
could not be benitficial to us. (Hear, hear.)
Lord H. VANE was not about to defend the conduct of
the Danish Government in all respects, but, looking to the
general question, ho thought the house would take a dif-
ferent view of it from that taken by his hon. friend who
had just sat down. His hon. friend might rest assured that
he was mistaken in supposing that the Treaty of London
was no longer valid. The war night abrogate the treaty
as regarded Russia, but not as regarded the other parties to
the treaty. His hon. friend was not perhaps aware that
Denmark had a guarantee from this country for her possess.
sions. In 1720 such a guarantee was given by this country,
and also by France, but under it Schleswig and Holstein
were guaranteed to the throne of Denmark. Seeing that
Denmark held the keys of the Baltic, it had been thought
advisable to make the succession descend unbroken rather
than that Schleswig and Holstein should be separated from
it. He believed it was the opinion of all parties that the
settlement should be preserved.
[At this part of the hon. member's speech, there were
only twenty-one members present. A motion was made to
count, but a sufficient number of members was obtained to
make up the requisite forty.
Lord H. VANE went on to say that he thought the
time might again come when Germany would find it neces-
sary to appeal to the national feeling, but it was unwise on
her part now to raise a question that might lead to an inter-
vention against which she might find it difficult to contend.
Ile hoped the noble lord would be able to inform them
that a disposition existed on the part of Germany to make
such moderate concessions as would lead to a settlement of
this long agitated question.
everyord
J. iffßeurenseseß in the
aiSir M. PETO said there was no part of Germany inwhich
greater liberty existed than in Holstein. He believed that
difference mda, tt erL.
the Government of Denmark was anxious for the good
offices of their country in order to bring about a settlement
of
though he had spoken before on
this subject, he hoped he should be allowed to answer the
appeal of the hon. member for Buckingham. He should
confine himself to the present state of the case. The German
Confederation had come to resolutions by Which they de-
clared that if the provinces would not submit in a certain
time, they would take action. He was glad to hear that it
was likely the King of Denmark would make propositions,

either to the German Confederation or to Austria or Prussia,

by which he hoped that the federal execution would be post-
poned, and that arrangements would be made—though upon
what grounds he was not yet prepared to say—to settle the
matter, it was to be hoped satisfactorily. Certain require-
ments having been made, it was fair that the King of Den-
mark should have an opportunity either to comply or to state

his reasons for declining. He trusted either that the matter
would now be settled satisfactorily, or, at all events, that
some time would be allowed for further negotiation. He be-
lieved that the meaning of the treaty was this :—Different

titles could be set up to different parts of the Danish mo-
narchy, upon the death of the present Sovereign ; and in that
case the Emperor of Russia might prefer a title against other
claimants.!Russia would not be likely to fare the worst among
the claimants, and a great part of the Danish monarchy
might fall to her share. Under these circumstances, it was
thought desirable that there should be some agreement,
by which the Danish monarchy should pass whole and en-
tire to an heir, who should be named ; that thus the ambi-
tion of claimants might be terminated, and Denmark con-
tinue to exist as an independent monarchy. That, he
believed, was the intention of the treaty. If Russia, on the
death of the King of Denmark, should put forward a claim
to Holstein, then all the other powers would be entitled to

say that Russia had signed treaties by which she was pre-
cluded from realising that claim. He would not go further
into the question, but he thought it was not desirable to
give any further papers at present.
DANISH CLAIMS.
Mr. 3,IACAULAY rose to call attention to the several
addresses to the Crown by this house, and the Treasury
minutes issued thereon, empowering the commissioners for
Danish claims to receive, examine, and judiciously deter-
mine the claims of certain British subjects for losses aris-

ing out of the confiscation by the Danish Government of
ships and cargoes in the year 1807. The bon. and learned
gentleman dwelt upon the fact that after such losses had
been judicially determined, and the commissisners' adjudi-

cation and report thereon had been presented to the house,
the House of Commons, by its address, June 10, 1841,

prayed her Majesty to advance to the claimants the amount
of the losses so adjudged, with the assurance that the house
_ _ _

would make good the same, but that nevertheless such claims
remain unliquidated ; and after reviewing the facts, he ad-
vocated the justice and propriety of fulfilling the prayer of
the address and satisfying the claims of the petitioners.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL thought that the hon.
and learned gentleman had shown a wise discretion in con-
cluding his speech without submitting any motion to the
house. It was well worthy of the consideration of the

house how far a limit in time should be put to the
bringing forward of such claims as those referred
to. This question was now fifty-seven years old,
and for the last fifteen years had been allowed
to slumber undisturbed. (Mr. Macaulay—Ten years.)

Well, ten years was a very good nap. (A laugh.)
He thought that the course adopted by successive Govern-
ments with respect to the question was perfectly justifiable.
On the admission of his hon. and learned friend, the case
of these claimants was wholly untenable, for his hon. and
learned friend had admitted that one of the most obvious
rights of a belligerent was to confiscate the property afloat
of the subjects of its enemy. He should feel alarmed if he
thought the house would act upon the argument advanced
by his hon. and learned friend. That argument was, that
war being entered upon, the house was to vote out of the
taxes of the country compensation to a person whose pro-
perty had been confiscated, because, in the opinion of that
individual, the war had either been unjustly entered upon
or illegally carried out. A broad distinction existed between
ships and cargoes afloat and goods or book-debts on shore
—a distinction that was admitted by the highest authorities
—and he therefore could not admit, with his hon. and
learned friend, that the same principle applied to both those
kinds of property. Government, he thought, were justified
in satisfying certain claims without pledging themselves as
to other cases. It was said that they might satisfy these
claims without establishing a precedent. But he held that
every precedent established a principle, and if they yielded
these claims he did not see how they could resist auy future
claims in which it was alleged that the claimant had suf-
fered in consequence of an unjust war. It would have been
establishing a most mischievous precedent. It was right to
bear in mind, with respect to these claims, that, according
to the statement of the claimants themselves, their claims
had been three times rejected by the house, and the matter
had been allowed to slumber for ten years. It was better to
be guided by the more recent judgment of the house than
to go back to the decisions of many years ago. The question
was reduced within the narrowest limits, and he should not
intrude on the house further with the matter.
Mr. LOCKE said the Attorney-General was pleading,
as it were, a statute of limitations, and though that course
might do well in the courts of law, it was no answer in this
house to say that because an injustice had not been reme-
died for many years, it was not to be rectified now. He
hardly thought that even in a court of law the case for a
defendant pleading the Statute of Limitations would be held
to be proved on such evidence. It was a curious fact that
the claims which were now admitted had been resisted for
27 years. The arguments now alleged might be the law of
nations, but they were not common sense, nor did he be-
lieve that they were the law of nations, for that law like all
irtnrrtmcon scams, ....,-
dence that the !goods had been seized at sea. Were they
now to be told that these claims were not to be allowed,
when the goods were not afloat, but had been put on the
quay, when formerly it was maintained that those which
had not been landed, were not to be allowed for ? The ar-
gument of the Attorney-General was weak, for though he
told them that something might be said for the conduct of
the British Government in 1817, he did not state what that
something was, or attempt to vindicate the conduct of the
Government in 1827. The whole expedition was secret, and
was in fact a trespass—an illegal act—for which compensa-
tion ought to be given to these British subjects who suf-
fered by it.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that
if his hon, and learned friend the Attorney-General had
rested the present case, as it was/ alleged he had, upon the
statute of limitations, his opposition to these claims would
not have been satisfactory to the house. It was a very se-
rious state of things that almost all power of tracing these
proprietor's rights had almost disappeared. It was not upon
the statute of limitation simply that the Attorney-General
had taken his stand, but it was mainly upon this, that upon
three distinct occasions the house had distinctly refused to
entertain the question of compensation for these claims.
The house had, in fact, taken a less and less view of the
claims every time the subject was discussed, and never
since 1816 had it lent a favourable ear to applications in
their behalf. In 1851, when the subject was discussed, the
numbers in fa,four of the claims were 49; and those against
them 126 ; and the authority of such a vote as that was a
great fact in the history of the case. Common sense had
been appealed to by some of the supporters of these claims,
but the misfortune was that it was a very difficult thing to
discover where the common sense lay, because every speaker
seemed to think that he alone was possessed of it. (A
laugh.) It was not at all an unfair course, then, to fall back
upon the law of nations, and the concentrated wisdom of
recognised authority. Sir James Mackintosh had dealt
with the question of the goods on shore, for which compen-
sation had beea given, and the goods on the water, from
which it had been withheld, and he absolutely disrated the
house from the power of recognising the claims for compen-
sation which were set up for the goods on water. Under
such circumstances no grounds had been laid for inducing
the house to go in the teeth of precedents and a combina-
tion of authority, and he trusted they would very generally
agree that it would be wrong to give any further constdera •
tion to these claims. (Hear.)
Mr. MAC A ULAY explained. He had not said the war
was unjust, but that a confessed and admitted trespass had
been committed towards Denmark, and that the State which
inflicted a wrong was bound to indemnify the subjects to
whom that wrong was done.
The subject then dropped.
UNIVERSITY ELECTIONS.
On the order f,r the third reading of this bill,
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said it
was not his intention to make any hostile motion, but he
ventured to suggest that a prudent course would be to allow
the bill to be recommitted. He thought that many hon.
members did not see how much the principle of the bill had
been altered by details agreed to into committee. The bill
was at present no longer a bill to allow University voters
to vote without personal attendance. It authorised all
voters to give proxies which would enable the holders of
them to vote in the way they might think fit. He had
never heard of a more striking change in an electoral law,
and a time might come when such a principle would be
taken as a precedent by other constituencies. He could not
disguise from his own mind the possibility, however great
the improbability might be, of the system of proxies giving
facilities for fraud. Under the present provisions of the
bill any number of voters might empower any proxy to give
their vote, with solely the provision that the proxy must
be acquainted with the voters, and to that especial provision
he now wished to call the attention of the house. Besides
these provisions, every voter might run a race against his
own proxy, but it would depend on accident who should
first vote, and for whom the vote should be given. In fact,
both the voter and the proxy might vote at different polling
places without possible objection, (Hear.) The door would
be opened therefore for error and for inconvenience, and
that for no purpose connected with the bill. In addition to
these objections, there would be a disposition to college
combinations which would execcise an undue influence over
candidates. Having been returned himself by a majority
of resident as well as non-resident voters, he of course had
not made these observations with reference to his own case.
(Hear, hear.)
Mr. DODSON did not think that there would be that
concentration of voting papers which the right hon. gentle-
man feared there would be.
Mr. W. HUNT, whose observations were rendered
almost wholly inaudible by repeated cries of " divide," and
ironical cheers, was understood to support the bill, and to
justify his own conduct in crying "no " to some observa-
tions on the other side. During the whole of the time that
the hon. member was speaking the house was in such con-
fusion that it would be absurd to attempt any rendering of
even the general effect of his speech.
Lord PALMERSTON would not detain the house with
any arguments, but was unwilling that this bill should go
to a third reading without his taking the opportunity as he
was in the house of observing that he concurred in the ob-

jcetions to this bill, which would open the door to much
abuse, _ _

Mr. CONINGIIAM made some observations, which
were rendered wholly unintelligible by tumultuous inter-

ruptions.
As the Speaker was putting the question Mr. Coningham
was understood to say that he intended to conclude with a
motion. (Order, order.)
The SPEAKER said the hon. member (Mr. Coningham)
was perfectly in time.
Mr. CONTNGHAM then moved that the bill be recom-
mitted.
The house then divided, when the numbers were—
Ayes (for third reading)

_ .
Noes (for the recommittal)
Majority for the third reading ---85
The announcement of the result of the division was re-
ceived with loud cheering.
The bill was then read a third time and passed.

The report on supply was then brought up and agreed to.
THE NAVAL MEDICAL SUPPLEMENTAL FUND

SOCIETY BILL.
This bill passed through committee.
THE VACCINATION BILL.
This bill was read a third time and passed.
STIPENDIARY MAGISTRATES BILL.

The order for the second reading of this bill was dis-
charged.
COUNTY VOTERS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
This bill was read a third time and passed.
DEALERS IN OLD METALS BILL.

This bill as amended was considered and agreed to.
PARLIAMENTARY ELECTORS (IRELAND) BILL

Sir W. SOMERVILLE moved for leave to introduce a
bill to prevent the disfranchisement of Parliamentary elec-
tors in Ireland, by reason of their letting portions of their
holdings in the ordinary course of the occupation of the
same.

Mr. VANCE and Colonel DICKSON respectively objected
to a bill of such a nature being brought in at this late
period of the session, and at that late hour, when so few
Irish members were in the house.

Mr. BUTT and Mr. HENNESSY thought there could be no
harm in allowing the hon. baronet to introduce the bill.
Mr. S. FITZGERALD strongly objected to a bill of such
a nature being brought in at such a period of the session.
It was a bill of great importance, and which would require
more consideration than
,at that period of the session could
be given to it.
The house divided, and the numbers were—
For the motion 2O
Against it
Majority —2
The bill was according lost, and the announcement of the
numbers was received with much laughter.