The Sun.
London, England, 1857-03-10 00:00:00

turally obliged to conform to its views upon the sub-
ject, which are totally different ato our own, and the
usual custom was for the time relaxed. Her Mak sty's
Government thought proper, at the late Treaty of Paris,
to enter into a general engagement by which the views
of France, Russia, and other Powers were conformed
to, and those Powers in time of war abandoned. That
special concession was not the subject of any discus-
sion in this house, and I dare Say that had there been
hest Majesty's Government would have shown sufficient
reason to meet with its approval. It would doubtless
have shown that it had no other course open but that of
concurrence in the wishes of its alleas. However that
may be, it is to be observed that in all books upon the '
subject it is stated that all those rules—"a free ship
makes free goods," and that "the goods of a belligerent
are free in a neutral vessel"—are rules which were con-
sidered injurious to the maritime supremacy of mari-
time countries, and in an especial degree to the mari-
time supremacy of England ; and any one who will
take the pains to look at what was stated in the argu-
ments upon the subjsct will see that it was intended as
a blow at the maritime supremacy of this country.
Since that treaty was signed the Secretary of State of
the United States has submitted a proposal that we
should go a step further, and that Great Britain
should agree to the proposition that all mercantile yes-
s-ls should be free from capture during time of war.
Now, it appears to me that, although that proposition
carries an air of humanity and philanthropy about it,
it is not one calculated to prevent war—(Hear, hear)
—and which, under any circumstances, would greatly
cripple the energies of this country. (Hear, hear.) It
is obvious, in the first place, that one of the reasons
why foreign Powers are unwilling to go to war with
England is, that they foresee, as an inevitable conse-
quence, the whole of their commerce being swept off
the seas. They say, "We have a great deal of valu•
able property now at sea, and immediately upon our
declaeng war with Great Britain her cruisers will get
possession of it, and we shall be greatly injured." But
if, on the contrary, they were sure that all their mer-
chant ships could cross the seas without peril, that
reason for remaining at pease would be taken
away. But examine further the effects of such
a measure. Supposing the United States were to go
to war with us, there would be no impediment to her
marching an army into Cinada, and taking possession
of that country. We would have no pow-r of carry-
ing on a war by sea because she would have no fleet to
send out against us—we would have, in fact, no power
of reprisal. It may be said that we should still retain
the power of blockade ; but that has been limited and
restricted by the Convention of Paris, and a blockade,
to be effectual, should be such as would leave no port
open that a merchant vessel could enter. That conven-
tion rendered it impossible for us to maintain an effec-
tual blockade in the Black Sea, and in time of war we
might blockade New York and Brest, but other ports iu
the respective countries would be left free to carry on
the traffic. I have felt it necessary to say thus much
upon this point, because I have seen that several per-
sons, very high authorities, are disposed to entertain
these proposals, and likewise because I judged by the
report of the speech of my noble friend at the head of the
Government, at Liverpool, that he was rather favourably
disposed to those propositions. I may be wrong in the
view that I have formed, but my opinion is that if we
were to agree to that proposition our being a great naval
Power would be of no advantage to us—(hear, hear)—
and, in the first place, that a stipulation not to use our
naval power against the commercial trade of other coun-
tries would he a great provocation to war on the part of
those countries, and that the cause of humanity would
not be promoted ; and secondly, because in time of war
we should be almost helpless on the seas. I trust, there•
fore, that no Minister of Great Britain will set his signa-
ture to a treaty of this sort without the greatest consi-
deration, and without having consulted competent naval
authorities upon a subject of so much importance to the
prosperity of this country. (Hear, hear.)
Mr. H. DRUMMOND, in confirmation of what bad
fallen from the noble lord, remarked that during the de-
bates which took place -upon the Orders in Council, it
was expressly stated that they were issued, not merely
as measures of retaliation, but because they would have
the effect of injuring the enemy's trade ; and if they
wished for an instance of their effects, be would remind
them of the seizure of Spanish ships with rich cargoes,
which to a great extent prevented that country from
bringing her power to bear against us. If they were to
carry the doctrine of not seizing the property of bellige-
rents in private ships to its full extent, they might at
once refrain from intercepting supplies to a besieged
town, because private individuals were as much injured
in the one case as in the other.
Mr. J. G. PHILLIMORE could not believe that the
noble lord at the head of the Government, who had
always shown such anxiety to protect the honour and
the interests of England, could entertain the opinions
upon this subject which had been attributed to him by
the noble lord who had just spoken. Napoleon had ad-
vanced the maxim that a war should support itself, and
in pursuance of that doctrine he had always levied con•
tributions largely on the enemy. The only way in his
(elr. Philliinore'e) opinion that a maritime Power could
carry out that maxim and levy contributions, was by in-
tercepting the property of its enemy on the high seas.
(Hear, hear.) The same authority that he had quoted
had said that to deprive England of this power would be
to strike the heaviest blow at her prosperity. The hu-
manity lay rather in crippling the resources of the enemy
as soon as possible than in making concessions which
tended to protract the contest. (Hear, hear.)
Sir C. NAPIER, trusted we would never give up our
maritime rights and allow nations with which we were
at war to carry on their commerce when and how they
chose. If we were at war with France, was it to be said
that she Bhoul.l be permitted to send whatever merchant
ships she pleased to sea ? And as to 1)1 eckade, to talk
of a blockade of all the ports of France was perfect non-
sense. It was the fear of the British navy which pre-
vented other nations from going to war with us, and
such a proposal as that referred to by the ne he lord was
calculated to destroy our naval supremacy. (Hear.)
Mr. COBDEN said the house was supposed to he dis-
cussing the income tax, and he was not anxious to pro-
long the discussion on this subject. He wished, ho x-
eser, to correct an erroneous impression which appeared
to prevail. The question really was not whether they
were called upon to abandon an ancient right—that was
already signed away in the Treaty of Paris—but whe-
ther they should go a step further and exempt private
property from capture, no matter where it le fount.
that was Mr. Marcy's proposition. (Hear, hear.) When
the time arrived for ei,cuesing that question he thought
he should be able to adduce arguments calculated to
alter the noble lord's opinion.
Mr. NEWDEGATE was anxious to avail himself of
this opportunity to express his deep regret at the Treaty
of Paris, which prevented us from exercising the power
we had always possessed of using privateers and letters
of marque, which, he contended, had always been used
in the most legitimate manner. It was a question
of expense ; if this country wished to maintain her
naval militia, it caul l only be dons at an altogether
disproportionate cost, unless the merchant service was
kept up as a means for ai-ling the naval force. There
was no humanity in allowing free intercourse of trade in
times of war ; there was nothing so beneficial as to crip-
ple the resources of the enemy, for it saved bloodshed
and brought those to reason who could be influenced by
no other means. He was very glad that the noble lord
had called attention to the subject, and ho did trust that
it would prow true that "Governments may make what
agreements upon this subject they choose, but our
descendants on the other side of the Atlantic will never
bo crippled by such fatal provisions; those provisions
will be set aside ; there will remain only the shame of
having abandoned the great weapon of offence, and when
the time comes England will free herself from such un-
worthy shackles" _ _ .

Mr: M. MILNES thought it very desirable that the
noble lord should have an opportunity of stating what
he really said at Liverpool. It had been the policy of
those who opposed the noble lord to represent him as the
disturber of the peaco of Europe, and to wield against
him that weapon which had been used so often on the
Continent against the Ministry of which the noble lord
was the chief. But the people of this country saw that
the right of England and the cause of liberty throughout
the world would be supported by all the moral means in
our power. The right hon. member for the University
was difficult to please upon the subject of Italy ; it was
he who first called attention to the state of that country,
and it was scarcely just that he should turn against the
Government which had prosecuted the very cause which
he had proposed. He believed that it wont] be found
that the Governments of France and England had acted
rightly in declaring that the conduct of the Kin.. of
Naples was such that he deserved to he excluded from
the comity of nations, and he believed that they had done
well in making their protest against the conduct of that
country ; and that although there might be immediate
suffering the result would be beneficial in the end, and
great moral advantage would accrue.
Mr. WHITESIDE could not agree in the praise be-
stowed upon the foreign policy of the noble lord. He
had passed some time in Belgium last autumn, and had
heard the expression of feeling in that country upon
what had passed at the convention in Paris with respect
to the freedom of the press in Belgium. The speech of
the right hon. gentleman the member for the University
had been printed and read and admired. With regard to
Naples, if they had a right to interfere with that king.
dom because the Government was bad, what were they
to do with the Pope of Rome ! The King of Naples
did not interfere with other countries, but the Pope of
Rome did. In the same way, why did they not inter•
fere with Switzerland ? (Hear, hear.) He believed the
object of the noble lord was to make capital of his fo-
reign policy on the hustings. If they were justified in
interfering in the government of a foreign country be-
cause it was bad, why did they not seek to put down the
slave trade in America ? What were they to do with
the Emperor of Austria and the Emperor of Russia ?
The policy of interference was not only incomprehen-
sible, but utterly impracticable. (Hear, hear.) But if
they intended to fight the battle of Italy, let them not
iatigate men to kill the tyrant, and then leave them to
clisie,by the hangman. He believed that the improvement
o
'WV must be left to the course of events, and that to
try by indirect means to remedy the evil would only in-
crease it, and make things worse than ever. (Hear.)
Sir P. KELLY expressed his surprise hat no mem-
after what had
afalrreen
fromgreat misfortune
the noble lord (Lord J. Rus-
sell). It wasamisfortune that the noble lord at
the head of the Government had already spoken ; but
not a single moment ought to be lost in removing the
apprehension of the house
ni:eoillitathof3 subjeot He lieved that bespoke the senti
tllieerdmajority when
be-
he said that if the views of the noble rledssede
at Liverpool were carried out, a fatal blow exp
struck at the naval superiority of this countr would
theb
of expYressin his
noble lord did not have an opportunity
the adjogurn-
views, be should feel it as his duty to move
ment of the debate to give him an opportunity of doing
so, in order to remove, the doubts generally entertained.

Upon the subject of the income tax, he was not inclined
to oppose the second reading of the bill, because, unless
they agreed to some measure in relation to the income
tax, the war tax of 16d. in the pound would be main-
tained. No one was less disposed than himself to impair
the'resources of the Government, or to leave it without
ample support in providing for the exigencies of the
State ; but before the bill shall have passed, he should
take the sense of the house upon the question whether or
not they were to understand that the arrangement made
between the Government and the country by the act of
1853 was to be deemed a permanent arrangement and
contract. It was the universal belief of the members of
that house that the arrangement of 1853 was a binding
and final arrangement. He did not believe that the exi-
gencies of the State were such as imperatively to demand
the extra 2d., and he should certainly take the sense of
the house upon the question.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said
that, with regard to the convention of Paris, communi-
cations had been made to the United States asking them
to accede to the proposals which were there made. The
answer made to oar Government was that, provided cer-
tain ulterior changes were made, the United States of
America would be prepared to become a party to the
arrangement. These ulterior changes consisted in the ex-
emption from capture of the goods of an enemy carried
in an enemy's merchant vessel The matter was very se-
rious, and no answer had yet been given to the proposal
by the Government, which was fully acquainted with its
importance, and would not come to a decision before full
consideration was given to it. With regard to the In-
come Tax Act of 1853, he was not quite sure what there
was in the nature of a compact which that act was sup-
posed to have established with respect to the incometax.
The first departure from that act took place in 1854,
when the tax of 7d. in the pound was doubled, and that
proposition was made by the right bon. gentleman the
member for Oxford University himself. The act in force
this year would have enabled the Government to levy an
income-tax of 16d. in the pound. That act, according to
the hon. and learned gentleman (Sir F. Kelly) also vie-
lated the supposed compact of 1853 ; but he (the Chan-
cellor of the Exchequer) could not see the discrepancy
between the two acts.
Sir F. KELLY explained that hedid not consider there
had been any departure from the compact that an
increased income tax should be raised for the purposes of
war, but that should not be so when the war was over.
Lord H. VANE should be sorry to inflict a tax heavier
than was intended upon the more humble classes. He
trusted that upon a future occasion means would be
found so far to reduce the expenditure of the country
that at the expiration of the ensuing year they should be
euabled to dispense with the augmented impost alto-
gether.
The bill was then read a second time.
SUPPLY.
The house then went into committee of supply.
Mr. GLADSTONE (who had not observed the motion
for the house going into committee) rose, after the
Speaker had left the chair, and said he wished to know
if it was not then competent to him to make the state-
ment of which he had given notice / (The notice which
the right hon. gentleman had on the paper was—" On
the motion for Mr. Speaker leaving the chair to enable
the house to go into committee of supply, that in order
to secure to the country that relief from taxation which
it justly expects, it is necessary, in the judgment of this
house, to revise and further reduce the expenditure of
the State.")
The CHAIRMAN said the Speaker having left the
chair the right hon. gentleman would be out of order in
bringing on his motion then.
Lord J. RUSSELL wished to bear his testimony that
it was not the fault of the right hon. gentleman the mem-
ber for Oxford University that he did not attend at the
moment when the Speaker was leaving the chair; be-
cause he (Lord J. Russell) was speaking to him at the
time, having gone to ask him whether he intended to
bring forward his motion that night. (A laugh.) Of
course the First Lord of the Admiralty would take his
own course on the matter, but probably through courtesy
he would aliow his right hon. friend to make his state-
ment.
Sir C. WOOD said be was very sorry it would not be in
his power to ccomply with the suggestion of the noble
lord. He did not intend to delay the house at any length,
for he believed it was the wish of the house that the votes
he was about to propose should be taken. What he pro-
posed to do was to take one-third of the whole of each
vote. That would cover sufficient time to allow them
them to carry on the public service, and afterwards,
when the new Parliament met, full time to discuss at
length all the votes that would have to be taken. He
believed it would best meet the wishes and convenience
of the house to take a vote upon each estimate to carry
•n the public service for a couple of months. There was
only one statement he should like to make, because he
thought it only fair to give the house every information
on the subject, and that was as to the reduction of the
number of seamen. He had not been able to reduce the
number of men to the extent he had wished, and that
was mainly owing to a cause that he thought the house
would not disapprove of, namely, the indisposition of the
men to leave toe service. (Hear, hear.) A large por-
tion of the navy now consisted of continuous service men.
It was only the other day that a ship was paid off, and
of the continuous service men not one left the service.
Such also was the case with the old men-of-war's men,
and he hoped the house would not turn them adrift.
(Hear, hear.) What he proposed to do was to take the
number of men for four months, and take a vote on
account of each head of estimate of one-third upen the
whole sum.
The first vote was that 53,700 men and boys be em-
ployed in the service of her Majesty's navy.
Mr. W. WILLIAMS wished to call the attention of
the committee to two or three points connected with
these estimates, with a view of having them explained
by the right hon. baronet. He found that in the expen-
diture of last year there bad been several deviations from
the votes of the house—those on some items being
greatly extended, on others curtailed. Several items,
too, were jumbled up in one vote, so that it was impos-
sible to know the sum required, to be spent on any one
of them in particular. He considered that it would be
better to refer the estimates to a select committee, as it
was only by such means they would be able to unravel the
intricacies with which they abounded. It did notcome with-
in the province of the auditor to correct over expenditure,
and thus Government was enabled to apply the pub-
lic money without the sanction of Parliament. In one
return the auditor stated that on each one of 19 items
there had been more expended than had been voted, and
that on five others the expenditure had been less than
that authorised by Parliament, the balance against the
nation amounting to 323,0001. They were now called
on to vote 33,000 seamen and 15,000 marines, while
during the war they voted 60,000 seamen and 16,000
marines. In 1841, too, the year of peace in which they
had voted the greatest number of men, the Seamen num-
bered 32,500, and the marines 10,500. From a compa-
rison of these figures he was led to think it very extra-
ordinary that in proportion to the number of seamen
they should want so many marines. They had now 32
generals of marfnes, whereas formerly they used to have
only two, one of whom was also an admiral and the
' other a military officer, and he had never yet heard of a
general of marines taking the command of a division. It
was now proposed to vote 1,395,0001. upon naval stores,
and 578,0001. upon new works in the dockyards.
During the last four years they had expended on stores
I no lees a sum than 9,800,0001., and upon new works
1,395,0001., so that the amount now proposed ap-
peared to him extravagant. They had, since the
French war, expended 12,000,0001., upon their dock-
, yards, which were then capable of accommodating
about 10,000 ships in commission. The expenditure
upon labourers was very disproportionate to that outlay.
1 Another point was, that they had now 17 admirals in
I commission, three or four of whom were commissioners
in the dockyards, and 270 idle. The total number of
ships in commission was 297, so that they had, within
10, an admiral for every ship.
Sir H. WILLOUGHBY was glad the right hon gen-
tleman proposed to take a vote for the excess of expendi-
ture last year, which amounted to 211,000/. They had,
by expending on certain items less than bad been voted,
saved a sum of 620,0001., all of which they otherwise
expended without the authority of Parliament ; so that
it was quite clear, if such a course were to be allowed to
go on, the consideration of the estimates in that house
would become a mere idle proceeding. He hoped the
right hon. gentleman would devise some plan by which
the audit might be placed upon a satisfactory footing,
and become really effective and useful.

Sir 0. NAPIER said he did not think the estimate of
53,700 men a very extaavagant one, on the eve of a war
with China. On the contrary, he should like to see the
vote a little larger. He saw that 5,700 of these men
were voted for the coast guard service, who could not be
employed afloat. That left them 45,000 men, viz., 33,000
seamen, and 15,000 marines. He might further observe
that there was now no reserve at all, and therefore he
concluded that these 5,700 men were intended to form a
reserve. In 1853 there were 2,000 boys voted, but now
men and boys were mixed up together, and he wished to
ask whether there was now an additional number of boys?
It had been found that these boys, when they had grown
up, made excellent seamen. He would also ask the First
Lord of the Admiralty how many of these 33,000 seamen
were continuous service men, and how many of them w•re
" novices?" Some remarks had fallen from the hon. mem-
ber for Lambeth relative to the large vote of 15,000 men
for the marines ; but he (Sir C. Napier) thought the Go-
vernment had very wisely augmented the number of
marines. He was further very happy to see that the
Government had placed a greater number of marines in
the seaport towns. He thought the seaport towns should
be garrisoned entirely by marines, and then, in the event
of war taking place, the marines could be marched at
once on board the fleet, and their places be supplied by
militiamen. The hon. member for Lambeth had also
complained that there were so many generals of marines
unemployed. He (Sir C. Napier) regretted that it was
not the custom to employ generals of marines ; and he
thought it would be very proper to give them commands
in the garrison seaport towns. There was another re-
mark he wished to make. The continuous service men
were entered for ten years, and he understood that these
men were not always so fit as they ought to be—they
were not always of a very good class. He would sug-
gest that before they were entered for that period they
should be submitted to a probation of one year, in order
to ascertain whether they were likely to be of service.
He also begged to draw the attention of the First Lord
of the Admiralty to the circumstance that when an
ablebodied seaman became a petty officer, he lost the
additional pay which he had been previously xeceiv-
ing, which he thought was a case of hardship. He
(Sir Charles Napier) would again draw the attention
of the Government and the house to the fact that
we were now in the 40th year of peace (with the ex-
ception of the Russian war), and had as yet no regular
system of manning the navy. Some time ago a rule was
established that men should be called out by proclama-
tion, and then receive abounty—asystem which entailed
great expense and inconvenience on the country ; but
whether that rule were altered or not he (Sir C. Napier)