because we have the largest commercial marine, which is like saying that a country which has the largest civil population would suffer most from volunteers. It is, on the contrary, a proof that we could arm and commission the largest number of privateers, and thus at once acquire without charge the greatest naval strength, and utilise the merchantmen who would admittedly be thrown out of employment by a war. Sir WILLIAM HARCOURT says, besides, that the power of sending out privateers is injurious to us because we possess a great navy, an assertion which looks so like nonsense that, until Sir WILLIAM HARCOURT has deliberately repeated it, I shall not venture to think it anything else.

In the course of the debate the question was raised of the validity and binding force of the Declaration of Paris. As to this Mr. BOURKE says that "the Plenipotentiary had full power to sign the declaration;" but either he is mistaken in this, or else Lord CLARENDON was mistaken in declaring, as he himself did, that he went beyond his powers in signing it. What is certain is, that no such powers are to be found among those recorded by the published protocols as having been exhibited and proved in form. Then, Mr. BOURKE says he is "surprised to hear some honourable gentlemen say that because that instrument was not ratified we are not bound by it." Mr. BOURKE should know that the ratification is that which alone could make it binding. Even a treaty is not binding if it is not ratified. How much less, then, can be a " Declaration," which, by its very title, confesses itself to be a far less solemn document than a treaty. And what is really surprising is that Mr. BOURKE, speaking as he did in the name of the Ministry, should speak slightingly of ratification as "certain formalities," and argue that they were not to be regarded, as though the QUEEN's signature were of no importance, and its absence of no consequence. SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT went beyond this, and argued that the Declaration is binding because Parliament has not disallowed it, which he says "amounts to practically giving its adhesion to it." He might as well say that Parliament has practically given its adhesion to everything it does not categorically deny. If Parliament has not rejected, neither has it accepted this Declaration. Nay, more, it dares not. The challenge to do so has repeatedly been thrown down, and as repeatedly evaded. Indeed, the course taken with Mr. BAILLIE COCHRANE'S Motion amounts to a flagrant abdication of all authority or voice in the matter. Either the Declaration is binding and should be upheld, or it is not binding and should be denounced. Those who held the former belief were bound to meet Mr. BAILLIE COCHRANE'S Motion with a negative vote; but when the House declares, as it did by the vote of Tuesday, that it will not even entertain the question, it declares that it is not able or willing to pronounce one way or the other on a question of vital importance. By this course not only does the House announce that any conclusion it may come to is valueless, but it also provokes the question how far it is of any use to us to possess an Imperial Parliament which declines to deal with imperial matters. Dog Bills, permissive Bills, bird's-nesting Bills, privilege and personal squabbles, the House is eager to deal with and ready to decide upon; but if, when a matter of this kind, of vital importance, is introduced, it is met by a refusal to entertain it, the question arises how far the existence of the House of Commons can be defended, or its pretensions justified. I have the honour to be, your obedient Servant, THOMAS GIBSON BOWLES.

2, Harriet-street, Lowndes-square, April 15.

("From DIPLOMATICUS," in Vanity Fair.)

No. 1.

DIVISION IN THE CABINET.

April 17, 1875.

Sir WILLIAM HARCOURT's speech was the speech of the night. It was distinguished by intrepidity of assertion, for he said that England was compelled to acquiesce in the Armed Neutrality of 1780, and that privateering was abandoned by both parties in the American Civil War; by depth of research, for he complained of Mr. COCHRANE for saying that the doctrine of "free ships make free goods" began with the affair of the Silesian Loan, and he brought out the fact that Lord CARTERET (anticipating Lord CLARENDON) had promised FREDERICK THE GREAT that his ships should be allowed to carry the goods of the enemies of England. It displayed, too, a knowledge of law, for he not only admitted, but asserted, that incontrovertibly the Law of Nations, till 1856, authorised the seizure of enemies' goods in neutral vessels. But he maintained the doctrine that this informal piece of paper could change that which had been law from time immemorial, and thus put himself on the line adopted by Prince GORTCHAKOFF in his Observations on Lord DERBY's despatch of the 20th January. He drew a startling picture of the dangers that might accrue to England if two South American States were to go to war, and to search English vessels all over the world. He spoke of the Francs-tireurs in a tone that would have delighted Prince BISMARCK, and he proclaimed the doctrine that war was always wrong on both sides, and advocated the right of neutrals to be rewarded for keeping at peace. The reward of England for the Declaration of Paris had been the carrying trade of the world, and after having thus made her profit out of it, and invited forty other "Powers" to join, he hoped they should not be so dishonourable as to break their engagements. Finally, he had the courage to remind the House of the Protocol by which the Seven Powers, when they were about to sanction the withdrawal of Russia from the Black Sea Treaty, declared the necessity of observing all engagements. Sir WILLIAM HARCOURT sat down amidst the loud and deserved applause of the House, whom he had persuaded to believe that to set aside the authority of their Sovereign was the perfection of good faith, that to abdicate their own jurisdiction was the best proof of moderation, and that to obtain the carrying trade of the world displayed the highest sagacity that could animate the guardians of the British Empire.

Sir WILLIAM HARCOURT had read with emphasis the speech of Lord DERRY in 1867, recognising the obligation of the Declaration of Paris. He was sure that Lord DERBY would rather resign than retract. Mr. FORSYTH, on the other side, read part of the denunciation of the Declaration by Mr. DISRAELI on the 17th of March, 1862. This demonstration of the difference between the Premier and the Foreign Secretary failed to attract the attention of the House. Mr. DISRAELI maintained an obstinate silence. He did not say whether his contempt for the assembly and for the nation, of which he is the leader, has reached such a pitch that he was content to await the fulfilment of his own prophecy

"Such a flourishing but dead community will vanish with a rapidity which it is difficult now to conceive."

The House divided. For the Previous Question 261, for putting the Motion 36.

In spite of our indignation and disgust at all this, we are compelled to

acknowledge that we are under great obligation to Mr. DISRAELI and Lord DERBY for their agreement in not committing England to engagements, maritime or military, at Brussels and St. Petersburg. For it is perfectly clear that if, conspiring against their QUEEN and country, they had adopted the opposite course, they would have incurred no danger from the House of Commons. Mr. DISRAELI says he will do his duty to his Sovereign if the independence and neutrality of Belgium are really threatened. We rejoice to hear him say so, but when he adds that he will not be afraid to meet Parliament he is guilty of a pleonasm. If he were to surrender the Isle of Wight he would have nothing to fear from Parliament. After all, what is the Isle of Wight, compared with the right of defending England at rea?

No. 2.

CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE HISTORY OF THE
CRIMEAN WAR.

April 24, 1875.

In the recent debate on the Declaration of Paris due attention was not paid to the previous Declaration of March 28, 1854, and its importance was overlooked, not only in relation to the object for which it was made at the time but to the argument to be inferred for the future. For the suggestion was repeatedly referred to, though without approval by one single speaker, that whenever England shall go to war she will set aside the rule that the flag covers the cargo. Now it has, above all things, to be remembered that whereas in all past instances England accepted this rule only with particular States, and did so in time of peace, in the present instance she adopted it at the commencement of a war. How this result was obtained has yet to be revealed. How the subsequent Declaration of the 16th April, 1856, was obtained is equally a mystery. Nor can it be considered as a thing easy to be comprehended that every man who when independent has condemned this Declaration as suicidal has either submitted to it in silence or spoke, or even acted, in its support when under the trammels of office. This bondage does not proceed from party spirit, for the most influential men of both parties have denounced the Declaration; it does not proceed from Parliament as a body, or it would actuate unofficial members; it cannot proceed from the QUEEN, for the whole proceeding has been in defiance of the Royal authority, which was suspended by the unauthorised Declaration of March 28, 1854, and has not since been restored.

Under these mysterious and distressing circumstances we are grateful for the light which is shed by the speech of the Hon. A. EVELYN ASHLEY:

"It should be remembered that at the commencement of the Crimean War this concession to neutral nations was deliberately adopted by Lord PALMERSTON.'

This revelation comes from a gentleman well qualified to make it, for he is the grandson of Lady PALMERSTON, and in 1858 and 1859 was secretary to Lord PALMERSTON. The Declaration of 1854 has always been attributed to Lord PALMERSTON by those who denounced it. But this charge was made as an inference from Lord PALMERSTON's antecedents. It was not supported by direct evidence. Till last Tuesday, no qualified person had given any distinct statement of it to the world. We have had nothing but the London Gazette, from which we could only infer that which seemed

*Times report, April 14, 1875.

Lord Palmerston the Author of the Declaration of March 28, 1854. 267

likely. It was clear that the Declaration was not agreed to at a meeting of the Privy Council, for no such meeting took place at that time. The Declaration was without signature. There had been a correspondence with France on the subject. The French Minister, M. DROUYN De Lhuys, argued the necessity of a similar rule being adopted by England and France. He pleaded, truly, that France had a "free ships free goods" Treaty with the United States; and falsely that this was a principle of French law. M. DROUYN DE LHUYS said, in his lecture before the Institute of France, that on the 28th March, 1854, Lord COWLEY stated that the English Government upheld the prohibition of neutral commerce in transitu between two ports belonging to the enemy," and "that this form of document had been definitely adopted by the Council (Cabinet) of her Britannic Majesty." But he added, "At the last moment the Council was reassembled. After a long discussion it was decided that the article against which we had objected should be struck out from the English Declaration." On the 28th March the Cabinet did sit at the Foreign Office from two o'clock till four. It must have spent some time on the long and elaborate Declaration of War, which was also published without signature, and without the authority of the Privy Council. Still it is possible that the cession to neutral nations" was agreed to at that meeting. But the Cabinet had no anthority to agree to such a Declaration. Unlike that of the 16th April, 1856, it was within the competence of the QUEEN in Council. It was not an alteration of the Law of Nations, or of the Law of England; it was an administrative measure belonging to the QUEEN's prerogative of carrying on war. Since Tuesday week we have known that "at the commencement of the Crimean War this concession to neutral nations was deliberately adopted by Lord PALMERSTON." It is quite clear that if it were also adopted by the Cabinet, it was not deliberately, but under pressure, and in a hurry. If Lord PALMERSTON did not insert it on his own authority in the Gazette, he must have forced it on the Cabinet.

con

The question now arises, What was Lord PALMERSTON's position in the State that he should possess this power? He held the office of Home Secretary. It was among his special functions to regulate cab-drivers and licensed victuallers, and to make manufacturers consume their own smoke. How came he to depart from these functions, and to be able to dictate in questions of peace and war to the Prime Minister (Lord ABERDEEN), the Foreign Secretary (Lord CLARENDON), and to his former chief (Lord JOHN RUSSELL), who at that time had a seat in the Cabinet without office? It was not because he was ignorant of foreign affairs that he was relegated to the Home Office: he was put into that office because he was too formidable to be left in Opposition. He was excluded from the Foreign Office because in that office he had betrayed his trust.

On the 19th February, 1850, he wrote to Copenhagen to propose that the Grand Duke of OLDENBURGH, a member of the Russian Royal Family, should be appointed eventual successor to the Danish Monarchy.*

On the 20th March, 1851, he declared in Parliament that "Her Majesty's Government had studiously and systematically held themselves aloof from taking any share in these negotiations"—that is, "in regard to the succession to the Crown of Denmark."

In August, 1850, the QUEEN, having detected Lord PALMERSTON's duplicity, accused him, in her celebrated letter to Lord JOHN RUSSELL, of failing in sincerity towards the Crown," and threatened him, should he Correspondence respecting the Affairs of Denmark, 1850-53. Pp. 1-2. Presented to Parliament, 1864.

repeat the offence, with "the exercise of her Constitutional right of dismissing that Minister.”

On the 2nd December, 1851, LOUIS NAPOLEON's coup d'état took place. In defiance of the QUEEN and of his colleagues, Lord PALMERSTON expressed to the French Ambassador his satisfaction at LOUIS NAPOLEON'S success, which the Ambassador immediately communicated to Paris. Five years afterwards that Ambassador, Count WALEWSKI, proposed to Lord PALMERSTON's subordinate the Declaration of Paris.

The QUEEN fulfilled her threat, and dismissed Lord PALMERSTON; and on the 3rd of February, 1852, Lord JOHN RUSSELL read the QUEEN's letter in the House of Commons, and in justifying Lord PALMERSTON's dismissal he said :

"The Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, putting himself in the place of the Crown, neglected and passed by the Crown."

Shortly afterwards Lord JOHN RUSSELL'S Administration was tripped up by a motion of Lord PALMERSTON'S on the Militia Bill, Lord DERBY and Mr. DISRAELI came into office, were outvoted, and were succeeded by the "Liberal-Conservative" Administration.

Under these circumstances the Crown was again superseded, this time anonymously. Twenty-one years elapsed, and a member of his family volunteers the information that this crime is to be attributed to the same man who, as Foreign Secretary, had previously conspired with Count WALEWSKI to place LOUIS NAPOLEON on the throne of France, and who afterwards, as Prime Minister, again conspired with the same man to pass by the Crown to obtain the Declaration of Paris.

No. 3.

SIR WILLIAM HARCOURT'S CONVERSATIONS WITH
LORD CLARENDON.

May 1, 1875.

Next in importance to the revelation we recorded last week is that made by Sir WILLIAM HARCOURT respecting Lord CLARENDON:

"He had heard Lord CLARENDON say that this Declaration would have been made in Paris whether England had joined in it or not-that the Declaration of all the Powers of Europe upon the subject was so pronounced and unanimous, that in that great Conferencewhich was in some sense a readjustment of Europe-that Declaration would inevitably have been made."

This report of a conversation with Lord CLARENDON must be separated from the argumentative portion of the speech. It is not mere opinion; it is a deliberate testimony as to the view expressed of the case by the Minister who signed the Declaration of Paris. We have no intention of disparaging this testimony when we compare it with other evidence. Lord CLARENDON is dead, but, besides the conversation thus reported and the conversations that have yet to be reported, we have an account of the matter, signed by Lord CLARENDON's own hand. We open the Blue Book at the 22nd Protocol of the Paris Conference. What do we find? Count WALEWSKI, Ambassador in London at the time of the coup d'état, proposed the Declaretion of Paris on the 8th April. Lord CLARENDON seconded him.

But what said the beaten enemy to the clemency of her victorious opponents? The Plenipotentiary of Russia was not prepared to discuss the question!

"Count ORLOFF observes that the powers with which he is furnished having for their sol object the restoration of peace, he does not consider himself authorised to take part in a discussion which his instructions had not provided for."