mind, is unworthy of those who are parties to it, and derogatory to the character of this House. House adjourned at a quarter before One o'clock. HOUSE OF LORDS, Friday, November 26, 1852. MINUTES.] Took the Oaths.-The Lord Carleton. THE AMERICAN FISHERIES. LORD WHARNCLIFFE said, that he rose to put a question to the noble Earl the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs on a matter of great importance to a great number of Her Majesty's subjects in a distant part of Her dominions, and also to the inhabitants of a great State in friendly relations with us. The matter to which he referred was the Fisheries on the coast of our North American colonies. Their Lordships would probably have it in their recollection that in the month of July last intelligence reached this country that the people of the United States, and more especially a certain portion of them in the Eastern States, had been greatly excited by the publication of a letter from Mr. Webster, the then Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to the American Government, announcing that new instructions had been sent by the British Government to its officers in the Colonies to enforce the regulations of the treaty between the two countries as to the fisheries on the coasts of our North American Colonies, and informing them that this Government intended to put a new construction on that treaty, and warning such of the population of the United States as were interested in those fisheries, to beware of the penalties following on any infraction of the treaty, and promising to take the whole subject into the consideration of the United States Government. In answer to that letter, nothing, that he knew of, had yet appeared giving a satisfactory explanation of the state of the case, or of the motives which had induced the American Secretary of State to write and publish such a letter. There was published in the American papers shortly afterwards a paper purporting to have been received by our Minister at Washington, Mr. Crampton, and stating that there had never been any intention on the part of the British Government to put a new construction on the treaty. That was the only document, he believed, which had ap peared since the publication of Mr. Webster's letter at all calculated to throw any light upon the subject. Now he believed that that letter truly represented the real state of the case; and if that were so, it was difficult to comprehend how it happened that the Foreign Secretary of the United States should be so misled as to suppose that such an intention as that which he announced existed on the part of the British Government. He knew but of two suppositions which could by possibility explain the circumstance. The first was, that some communication to the Government of the United States was couched in such terms as conveyed that impression to them; and the other was, that no communication whatever had been made by this Government to that of the United States-no intimation on the subject, such as was required by the ordinary rules of courtesy observed in diplomatic transactions, and that the United States were left to put their own construction on the acts of the British Government. Which of these two suppositions was right he knew not; but it was not unfair to suppose that the noble Earl opposite, the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, would be not only ready, but even anxious, to give an explanation on this subject which would be satisfactory not only to their Lordships and the country, and our Colonies, but also to the American fishermen, who were also deeply interested in the issue of this question. There was another matter connected with this question, which, in his opinion, entitled him to ask it. Rumours were current, and especially in the United States and in the Canadas, that in connexion with this subject of the fisheries, it was proposed to make fresh arrangements, by negotiations now pending, to improve the commercial relations between our North American Colonies and the United States. Having no documents before him, he could only speak of these statements as rumour, but he knew that they formed part of the current opinion on both sides of the Canadian border. That was, in his opinion, an additional reason for asking the noble Earl opposite to communicate to the House and to the country the present condition of these transactions. The question which he now wished to ask was information as to this point-whether the correspondence and negotiations between the two Governments, which had been going on for some time past, on the subject of the fisheries on the coast of our North American Colonies, were now brought to a conclusion; and, if | knew the influence which periodical events so, whether he would consent to lay the exercised in those localities, might perhaps papers connected with them at once on the table; or, if not at present, whether he would have any objection to lay them upon the table upon a Motion made to that effect? our new arrangements should have been postponed until the American Government had had a longer notice of them, that was no compliment to the American Government, as it presupposed that it was privy to the acts of aggression on our shores, which some American sub be able to account for the appearance at that time of a correspondence which at another period might never have seen the light. He asserted that Her Majesty's Government were not to blame for anyThe EARL of MALMESBURY said, thing which had occurred either on this that the noble Earl who had just sat down or on the other side of the Atlantic. With had in no way exaggerated the importance respect to the notice to be given to the of the question to which he had been re- Government of the United States, he had ferring a question which during the last only to assure the House that notice was five months had occupied the attention of given to it as soon as the change of our Her Majesty's Government as much as it naval arrangements was made; not that deserved. The noble Baron had referred he believed that it was necessary for us to the letter of the late Secretary of State to give any notice at all, save on acfor Foreign Affairs in the United States, count of the usual diplomatic courtesy. Mr. Webster, complaining of the conduct If any person thought that, on the part of Her Majesty's Government, when that of Her Majesty's Government, he should Government issued orders for the employ-have given that notice earlier, or that ment of a new description of vessels, and also of a greater number of vessels, in protecting our North American fisheries. The noble Baron had attempted to account for the publication of that letter. He supposed that it might perhaps have been published because the orders of the British Government to its colonial officers were couch-jects had been long in the habit of pered in such terms as were not pleasing to the United States, or from another reason -namely, in consequence of Mr. Webster having supposed that Her Majesty's Government intended to put a new construction on the treaty of 1818. Now he said, on behalf of Her Majesty's Government, that it had written to its own officers in Canada and elsewhere, and also to the officers of the United States, and that it had not used any language to any of them which it was not fitting to employ on such occasions. He would add, also, that Her Majesty's Government had placed no new construction on the treaty-that it had asserted no new claim whatever for itself on the American Government-that it had made no addition to the material force already on the station-that it was more a police regulation than anything else. A new and more useful sort of vessel was employed, and in greater numbers than before the number of cannon was even diminished-and nothing had been done calculated to excite the jealousy of the American Government. He (the Earl of Malmesbury) knew nothing of the source of the discontent prevalent in the United States to which the noble Baron had referred; but the noble Lord who had just sat down, and who had been for some time a resident in the United States, and who petrating. As to the present state of the negotiations of which these events had been recently the cause between the two countries, he was obliged to tell their Lordships that they were in such a state that he must, though with regret, refuse to lay the papers regarding them on the table. He might even say that the negotiations were only just begun. Before the lamented death of Mr. Webster, he had entertained the proposal of Her Majesty's Government, and had agreed to negotiate on a large and wide basis, including not only all the disputed points regarding the fisheries on the coasts of our North American Colonies, but also the trade between the United States on the one hand, and Canada and our other Colonies on the other. He gladly admitted that from the moment of commencing the negotiations, Mr. Webster had acted in a true principle of conciliation, and that he had expressed to our Minister, Mr. Crampton, that it was his most anxious desire that the trade between the two countries should be carried on upon a greater principle of freedom, and that all possible causes of dispute should be removed between two such great nations. On all accounts Her Majesty's Government regretted the death of that great statesman; but more especially on account of the particular period at which it occurred, for it had interrupted the ne- | Irish and Scotch distillers were treated ungotiations which were commenced; and at justly by the existing law with reference that moment he had no official information to duties upon spirits in bond. The right of any successor having been appointed to hon. Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Sehis (Mr. Webster's) office. He was happy cretary to the Treasury, the hon. Member to inform their Lordships that Her Ma- for Liverpool (Mr. F. Mackenzie), and the jesty's Government had received the same Secretary to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireassurances of goodwill from the President, land, supported that Resolution. Acting Mr. Fillmore, and the same expression of upon that Resolution, the Irish and Scotch his anxious desire that the question should Members submitted a Bill to the House, be settled, not on a narrow footing, but on on the back of which Bill were the names a broad field. They had been met in the of Lord Naas and Mr. G. A. Hamilton; same spirit by Commodore Perry, who had but unfortunately the Bill was lost. He been sent by his Government to watch should certainly be glad to know whether over the property and to promote the in- it was the intention of the Government to terests of the American fishermen, who afford any relief to those suffering interests were exercising their rights, not near our for which they had, when in Opposition, so coasts, but around our shores. In fact, frequently expressed their smpathyy. from the American Government, with the exception of the first letter, which was written by Mr. Webster in a moment of excitement, when he was suffering from the illness which terminated in his death, they had had nothing but friendly assurances. There had not been a single word said by any official personage in the United States which did not give Her Majesty's Government sanguine hopes that these negotiations would be brought to a satisfactory conclusion, and that every cause of dispute between the two countries would be amicably settled. When that period arrived, it would afford the greatest satisfaction to him to lay on the table of the House the papers which the noble Baron had asked for. House adjourned to Monday next. HOUSE OF COMMONS, The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER said, he was sure that the House would admit that it was scarcely fair that he should be pressed to make a communication with respect to the remission of duties, or the intentions of the Government in that behalf, on the eve of the financial statement. The hon. Member would soon have an ample opportunity for explaining his own views, and learning those of the Government, on the subject to which he referred. COMMERCIAL LEGISLATION-FREE TRADE-EXPLANATION. MR. J. L. RICARDO said, he rose to ask a question of some importance to the House. There was a Resolution, moved by the noble Lord the Member for Tiverton (Viscount Palmerston) as an Amendment to the proposition of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. C. Villiers). Now he perceived that that Resolution was dif ferently worded in the Votes issued that morning to what it was on the previous MINUTES.] NEW WRITS.-For Abingdon, v. Ma- evening. Those very important words jor General James Caulfield, deceased; for which they were told the right hon. BaroBury St. Edmund's, v. Sir John Stuart, Vice-net the Member for Carlisle (Sir J. Graham) Chancellor; for Durham City, v. Thomas Colpitts Granger, esq., deceased; for Oldham, v. John Duncuft, esq., deceased; for Peterborough, v. Hon. Richard Watson, deceased. Friday, November 26, 1852. DUTIES ON HOME-MADE SPIRITS IN MR. ROCHE said, he wished to put a question to the right hon. Chancellor of the Exchequer in reference to the remission of duties upon home-made spirits in bond. It would be in the recollection of the House that, in the Session of 1850, the Scotch and Irish Members, with the aid of some English Members, succeeded in carrying a Resolution to the effect that had inserted, were left out of the Votes of that morning. He wanted to know whether the Resolution as it stood upon the paper, was the Resolution which the Government had adopted in abandoning the Amendment of which they had given notice? The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: On the paper which I hold in my hand the words alluded to are not omitted, and that is the Resolution now before the House. MR. J. L. RICARDO was understood to say that the words he had alluded to were omitted in the Resolution which ap peared in the paper that was issued that morning. It seemed, however, that in the paper issued since, the Resolution had been given correctly. The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Well, the Resolution before the House, and which the Government had determined to abide by, was that which had been proposed by the noble Lord the Member for Tiverton. MR. J. L. RICARDO said, it was important to know whether the Government intended to adopt the Resolution of the noble Lord in lieu of the Amendment which they had themselves proposed. The CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I never said that I adopted any Resolution. What I said was, that in deference to the feeling of the House I would withdraw my Amendment on the Motion of the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, and, therefore, the Amendment of the noble Lord the Member for Tiverton was the only Amendment which was lying upon the table of the House. RELATIONS WITH ROME. MR. HINDLEY said, he begged to ask the hon. Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether the interview which Sir Henry Bulwer, our Envoy at the Court of Tuscany, had with the Pope, some time ago, took place in pursuance of instructions from the Government; and whether there would be any objection to lay any communications which might have passed upon the subject between Sir Henry Bulwer and the Foreign Office upon the table of the House? be present on the spot an official of higher rank than a Consul. That was the object of Sir Henry Bulwer's visit to Rome; and, being in Rome, Sir Henry Bulwer did certainly avail himself of that opportunity to hold several interviews with members of the Papal Government on subjects interesting to both countries; but Sir Henry Bulwer went to Rome charged with no instructions, invested with no powers, and not in any manner accredited to the Papal Government. Whatever interviews might have passed between him and members of the Papal Government were entirely of a private and unofficial character. Under those circumstances, he (Lord Stanley) did not think it would be advisable to lay on the table of the House any communications relative to those interviews. As the subject had been brought under the notice of the House, he might take that opportunity of remarking that certain alleged reports as to the conversations to which he had referred, which had appeared in the columns of the daily press, were totally and absolutely incorrect. CASE OF EDWARD MURRAY. LORD DUDLEY STUART said, he would now ask the hon. Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to state to the House the result of the steps taken by the Government on behalf of Edward Murray, at Rome; and whether the correspondence on the subject was now in such a condition that he could lay it before the House? Sir LORD STANLEY said, the result of the steps taken by the Government on behalf of Edward Murray was, that his life had been saved-that the capital sentence pronounced against him had been commuted to a sentence of perpetual imprisonmentand he had been removed to a more healthy and convenient place of confinement. Henry Bulwer had been instructed to press for a further mitigation of that commuted sentence. That was the case, and the Government was not without hopes that some mitigation of the sentence might be obtained; but it might be injurious to the prospect of success if the correspondence were at present to be laid before the House. LORD STANLEY said, he was perfectly ready to reply to the question of the hon. Gentleman, and he should do so with the most entire unreserve. The hon. Member's question, as he (Lord Stanley) understood its general purport, was, that he wished to know what was the cause of, and what were the circumstances attending, Sir Henry Bulwer's visit to Rome? The cause of Sir Henry Bulwer's visit to Rome was this: At the time when he went there, Edward Murray, a British subject-concerning whom there was another question on the paper-was lying under sentence of death. There was no fault whatever to be found with the manner in which the British Consul at Rome, Mr. Freeborn, had conducted the negotiations respecting Edward Murray, and his consular duties generally; Order read, for resuming adjourned Debut considering the interest the case had bate on Amendment proposed to Question excited, both in England and in Italy,[23rd November] "That it is the opinion it was thought desirable that there should of this House, that the improved condition COMMERCIAL LEGISLATION-FREE of the Country, and particularly of the Industrious Classes, is mainly the result of recent Commercial Legislation, and especially of the Act of 1846, which established the free admission of Foreign Corn; and that that Act was a wise, just, and beneficial measure:"-(Mr. Charles Villiers:)-And which Amendment was to leave out from the word "Country," to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "and especially of the Industrious Classes, is mainly the result of recent Legislation, which has established the principle of unrestricted competition, has abolished Taxes imposed for the purposes of Protection, and has thereby diminished the cost and increased the abundance of the principle articles of the Food of the People," (Viscount Palmerston), instead thereof. Question again proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question." Debate resumed. MR. MILNER GIBSON: Sir, I desire very briefly to state to the House some considerations which have occurred to my mind in reference to the Resolution of my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton (Mr. C. Villiers), the Amendment of the noble Lord the Member for Tiverton (Viscount Palmerston), and the conclusions to which I have come with respect to both Motions. I consider it peculiarly unfortunate for us that the discussion of a Resolution intended to be a simple affirmation of a principle of public policy should have been mixed up with party considerations. I, for one, absolve myself of all responsibility, if that result should take place. I think that although it is true, as the right hon. Chancellor of the Exchequer says, that it is a mistake for either an individual or a Government to submit to insult, yet, on the other hand, it is not an uncommon stratagem, not an unusual Ministerial manœuvre, to call Resolutions of this kind votes of want of confidence, in order that thereby a fair expression of the opinion of the House may not be taken; and in order that the Members, who are supporters of Government, may be deterred from expressing their genuine opinions on the question before the House. I am at a loss to understand why it was necessary to say that this Motion of my hon. Friend's was a vote of want of confidence. If ever there was a question on which the House was entitled to be quite unfettered by Governmental considerations it was this, because the Government had told the people in the very commencement that they placed their own opinions on the shelf, and that the country was to pronounce freely without any reference to the private opinions of the Government. If that be so, I ask why we are now to be prevented pronouncing freely our opinion of the policy and justice of our commercial legislation, because the Ministers may chance to put the construction of a vote of want of confidence on our proceedings, in order to influence in their own ranks the gentlemen who go by the name of Conservative Free Traders. I think that we should have had these Conservative Free Traders voting with the hon. Member for Wolverhampton had not the manoeuvre been resorted to of turning the Motion into a vote of want of confidence. Government had separated themselves entirely from this question. These opinions were not to inconvenience them in any way, and I think we are not dealt fairly with, when my hon. Friend submits his views in a temperate and proper Resolution, to have this extreme sensitiveness exhibited, and to be told that we are passing a deliberate insult on the Members of the Administration. I should suppose that the meaning of that word "insult" was connected with the intention of the person supposed to inflict it; and I say that if any intention of showing want of confidence be disavowed, any intention of wounding unnecessarily the feelings of hon. Gentlemen opposite, or of insult to the Government be repudiated, such considerations ought no longer to influence the votes of Members of this House. But I consider that my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton would not have covered the whole ground, would not have pronounced fairly for the country, unless he had particularised the Corn Bill of 1846, and declared that measure to be both just and beneficial; and above all, I think he was bound to declare it to be a just measure, because in that term lay the whole question between the two parties. If we are to reason in the Resolutions which have been submitted to the House-and I submit that every one of these Resolutions, that of the right hon. Baronet the Member for Carlisle (Sir J. Graham), and also the Amendment of the noble Lord the Member for Tiverton (Viscount Pamerston) all give reasons why we should support recent commercial policyif we are to give reasons, let us take care that we give proper reasons, that we may tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing |