HC Deb 10 March 1859 vol 152 cc1662-76
VISCOUNT BURY

said, he rose for the purpose of calling the attention of the House to the subject of the Newfoundland Fisheries, and of moving the notice which he had placed upon the paper in relation thereto. The subject, he was fully aware, was a delicate one, and required to be handled with some caution, inasmuch as it involved questions of international law—questions, moreover, that were in dispute with a near ally of this country—and he trusted the house and the right hon. Gentleman (Sir E. Bulwer Lytton) would believe that he had brought it forward in no spirit of hostility towards the Government or of enmity towards that ally, but simply that it might be ventilated in this House as a subject of very grave importance. It was notorious that the French had made great demands in Newfoundland in respect of these fisheries. It was equally notorious that those demands had been met, of late years especially, by great concessions on the part of England; and the object of his Motion was to learn from the right hon. Baronet (Sir E. Bulwer Lytton) upon what principle the negotiations which were now taking place were based. He had been told that the papers he was about to move for could not be granted, because the question was at present matter of diplomatic correspondence, and that that correspondence would in some measure be incommoded if his Motion were complied with. But this question had been matter of diplo- matic correspondence ever since the year 1713, when by the Treaty of Utrecht, the Island of Newfoundland, was ceded to this country. It was well known that the concessions made by the English Government had not been carried out to their full extent, and that in consequence of the non-fulfilment of our engagements the French had stated publicly that they intended to enforce the provisions of existing treaties and the rights of which they were in possession by those treaties to their fullest extent. The result of such a mode of procedure would naturally be a collision between the French and the subjects of Great Britain in Newfoundland. The fact was that diplomacy had got us rather into a fix. Protocols had been framing for years upon the subject, treaties made and negotiations carried on in Newfoundland and at Paris; yet, after all, we found ourselves in the midst of a state of things that was at least exceedingly inconvenient to the country. The object of his Motion was to inquire of the Government on what basis they were now prepared to treat; whether they were prepared to enter with the French into the question of what existing treaties placed in their power, or whether they were prepared to enter into new treaties; whether Commissioners were to he employed in Newfoundland to investigate the question, or whether our Ambassador at Paris was to settle the matter with the French authorities there? By looking at the position on the map, it would be seen that Newfoundland was separated from the main land by two straits; on the north by the narrow straits between it and Labrador, and on the south by the Gulf of St. Lawrence. The southern passage was already in the power of the French, and if by Treaty the northern passage were also placed in their hands, any one might foresee that it must lead to complications that would prove inconvenient in every point of view. The question might be divided into three heads:—First, how the fisheries were now carried on; secondly, how they would be conducted if the Treaties now existing were carried out to their full extent; and, thirdly, the demands made by the French, and the French view of how the fisheries ought to be carried on. The way in which the fisheries were now carried on was this:—They had possession of part of the shore on the west side, and also on the north-east side they had a concurrent right with the English, for the purposes of drying their fish. The Newfoundland fishery was, however, the great nursery of the French navy, and, encouraged by a system of bounties, that concurrent right of fishing had virtually become an exclusive right by employing some 300 or 400 boats of 150 tons, each manned by eight or ten men; their headquarters were the Islands of Miquelon and St. Pierre, whence all their operations were directed. The whole of these fisheries were regulated by treaties, and it was remarkable that every one of the treaties was framed at a time when England was issuing from a state of war, anxious to obtain peace almost at any price, and naturally did not look with the accuracy she would otherwise have done to the interests of a distant dependency lying on the other side of the Atlantic. In the first treaty, that of Utrecht, there was nothing whatever about exclusive rights such as were now asserted by the French. The Treaty of Paris in 1763 referred to the Treaty of Utrecht, and gave to the French the power and authority they had enjoyed under its provisions, and ceded to them the two Islands of Miquelon and St. Pierre, but upon condition that they should not raise any fortifications thereon. The Treaty of Versailles, at the close of the American war, in 1783, placed France in the same position as under the Treaty of 1713. Thus matters stood until 1814, when the Treaty of Peace placed France in the same position as she occupied in 1792, at the breaking out of the war; and upon referring to papers to ascertain what that position was, he found that it was described to be exactly the same as in 1783, under the Treaty of Versailles. Therefore, by the last ratified treaty, that of 1814, the French were replaced in the same position in regard to the fisheries that they occupied in 1713 by the Treaty of Utrecht. It was the latter treaty, then, which regulated the fisheries, subject only to one clause in the treaty of 1763, which ceded the two Islands already referred to. The rights under that treaty were these:—The right to catch cod fish alone, conjointly with the subjects of England, within certain limits on the shores of Newfoundland; the right to land and dry the fish also within certain limits of the shore; and the right to erect temporary buildings for the purpose of the fisheries within the same limits. But the demands which had been made by the French ever since the year 1814 went far beyond those rights. They claimed not only the exclusive right of cod-fishing within those limits, but the exclusive right of going on shore for the purpose of their fisheries, removing the English settlements, and prosecuting fisheries of all kinds. The French demands continued to increase until, in 1857, when the Colonial Office, seeing the inconvenience of these constant demands on the part of France, set on foot a treaty, yielding all the demands that she had made, and a great many more besides, for it granted her the exclusive right of fishing on the coast of Labrador, and gave her a footing upon the south shore of Newfoundland, which no treaty had ever done before,—nominally for the purpose of taking bait, although no doubt the right would have been used for other purposes. That treaty, however, very fortunately was never carried into effect. There was a clause in it, the purport of which was that the Legislature of Newfoundland was to have a veto on the treaty, and if they found it was incompatible with the rights of the people of Newfoundland it should be regarded as a mere protocol, and treated as so much waste paper. Well, that treaty, as he had observed, was not carried into effect, and the reason was that it met with the unanimous opposition of the Legislature of Newfoundland. Upon their refusal to ratify the treaty, the French said to the English Government, "If you cannot put us in possession of the rights which you, by treaty, have granted to us; if the opposition of a colony is sufficient to upset a treaty which you yourselves have made, we will assert, to the fullest extent, the rights which we now possess." In pursuance of that determination, he found, when in Newfoundland a short time since, that the French had given notice to the inhabitants of St. George's Bay, an English settlement of about 1,100 people, that in the approaching fishing season they would turn them out of their holdings and take possession of the shore, as they would have been entitled to do under the treaty of 1857. If that were done collision would be inevitable, and if a blow were once struck it would be impossible to say what the consequence might be. The English settlers, too, would suffer much more by this proceeding than under the treaty of the right hon. Gentleman, because under the treaty they were to receive compensation, while in the present circumstances they would receive none. As the French had expressed their determination to exercise the rights conferred upon them by treaty, it was important to inquire what those rights were. The rights of the French in 1792 amounted to this—liberty in common with the British, to fish on the coast between Cape St. John and Cape Ray. The treaty provided that they were not to be disturbed in that right by the competition of the British, or, as afterwards explained, they were not to be molested by the British in their fishing. That conclusively recognized the presence of the British there. The manner of fishing also was prescribed, and the treaty said that it should not be deviated from by either party. If the British were not to fish there concurrently with the French, what was the meaning of "either party?" And in no treaty was the term "exclusive" or any synonym of that term used. It appeared from a decision of Lord Chief Justice Campbell, that by the law of nations a right of fishery was not lost by discontinuance. He (Viscount Bury) maintained that the French had only liberty to take codfish, because the word "fishery" in Newfoundland signified only cod-fishery. The Court of Newfoundland decided, in a case of fishery, that in that colony fish meant exclusively codfish. Treaties, it was universally acknowledged, ought to be construed according to the lex loci as gathered from the usages of the places to which they referred. The French had a right to land and dry fish. Now, cod was the only kind of fish that was cured or dried in Newfoundland, and, therefore, no fish but cod was implied. In several treaties with America "fish of every kind" were the words used, and this again showed that where "fish" or "fishery" only was used the treaty was confined to cod or cod-fishery. Till within the last twenty years the French never thought of claiming a right to any but a cod-fishery. If the treaties were carried out the French would be obliged to demolish their fortifications on the island of St. Pierre and Miquelon, and to fish, not with long lines containing an enormous number of hooks, but in accordance with the Treaty of Utrecht and with the usages of the last century, which were still adhered to by the Americans and the British. If the French would merely assert the terms of the treaties they would be in a worse position than now, and he therefore wished to know on what principle the diplomatic correspondence now going on between England and France was conducted on the part of England. Did Her Majesty's Government intend to inquire into the existing treaties, and to insist that the French should have nothing more than what was given to them by those treaties? Were they going to employ Commissioners in Newfoundland to investigate the subject with the local and the French authorities? Were they going to employ our Ambassador at Paris to negotiate with the French there? He should prefer to see the negotiation carried on in Newfoundland, for he thought that hitherto the French Plenipotentiaries had been rather too much for the English Plenipotentiaries. The French had lately got pretty much what concession they liked; but he hoped that on this subject the rights of the people of Newfoundland would not he given away for any State purpose whatever.

Motion made, and Question proposed— That an Humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, that She will be graciously pleased to give directions that there be laid before this House, Copies or Extracts of any Correspondence between the English and French authorities in Newfoundland, or between the Governor of Newfoundland and the Secretary of State for the Colonies, or between the English and French Governments, which may show the construction placed by the French authorities upon the Treaties which now regulate the Newfoundland Fisheries.

SIR EDWARD BULWER LYTTON

Sir, I can assure the noble Lord that I highly appreciate the temper as well as the ability which he has shown on this subject; and, so far from wishing that he had not interfered in the matter, I am, on the contrary, glad to think that we may secure so able a defender of the rights and interests of the colony of Newfoundland, of which I myself am, as it were, the professional advocate. Nevertheless, the noble Lord, I think, will see before I sit down that I am positively precluded from entering in detail into the question he has raised. It is a subject to which I have devoted great attention, and on which I have formed a very decided opinion; but, as the noble Lord has truly stated, it is one that involves very subtle points of argument and some serious ground of danger. I hope, however, that the disputes may be settled and the danger may be prevented by amicable negotiation. I will not follow the noble Lord through his able historical disquisition, but will simply admit that it is perfectly true that for the last thirty years negotiations have been begun, have been dropped, and have been resumed with the French, with regard to their alleged right of fishery in Newfoundland. The late Government, believing that a mutual understanding between the French and the English Governments as to their re- spective rights could not be arrived at by negotiation, attempted a kind of compromise—namely, the Convention of 1856, by which France was to cede a portion of her pretensions on the coast of Newfoundland, and to receive admission to a share in the fishing at Labrador with certain facilities to insure them a supply of bait. I cannot concur in the noble Lord's opinion that the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Labouchere) neglected the cause of Newfoundland in this matter, and for this reason:—He made the assent of the Legislature of Newfoundland requisite to the operation of the Convention. The assent was withheld, and the Convention fell to the ground. The noble Lord spoke of the traditionary policy on which he imagines every Secretary of State is to act; but I must remind him that during the ascendancy of that political party with which he is connected, there were no less than eight successive Secretaries for the Colonies in one single year. If each of those Secretaries of State had followed out a policy of his own, you would have had eight different policies for the British Colonies in one year; and I would then ask the noble Lord how many colonies we should have left to us at the end of eight years. I think the noble Lord asked me whether I approve of the Convention of 1856. I will venture to assume that, whether I approve or disapprove of what was done in that year, if the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Taunton were put now in office, he would not make in 1859 the same propositions as he made in 1856, partly because of the rejection of them by the Newfoundland Legislature, and partly because further evidence on the subject has been furnished to the Government. Having considered that evidence, I have come to the conclusion that the refusal of Newfoundland to concur in the Convention was justified. When this Convention was rejected by the Legislature of Newfoundland, the French Government expressed a determination to maintain its existing rights under treaty; but it is only within the last twelve months that they have declared, through the French Naval Commandant off Newfoundland, that they would enforce those alleged rights, the noble Lord asks what those rights are. The French Commandant summed them up in a sentence "the treaties; nothing more—nothing less." For my part, I have no objection to that—let them, have nothing less than the treaties, so long as they do not have something more, and the gain, in practice, will not be upon their side. Accordingly, Her Majesty's Government inquired whether the Government of France was disposed to re-enter into a consideration of the dispute in order to ascertain what are the rights claimed by the French, and the manner in which those rights have been exercised. If the treaty gives certain rights to France it imposes at the same time certain restrictions, in conformity to which those rights should be exercised. As France has given notice of her intention to enforce her rights, Her Majesty's Government have also given notice of their intention to enforce the rights of this country. We have proposed the appointment of a mixed Commission to investigate the facts on the spot, and to inquire into the manner in which the provisions of the treaty are observed by both parties. Her Majesty's Government are of opinion that if, as alleged, restrictions have been imposed on French fishermen to which they ought not to be exposed; so, on the other hand, there have been encroachments and deviations from the treaty on the part of the French fishermen, which Her Majesty's Government are fairly entitled to resist. The French Government have replied to this proposal in a most friendly spirit. The Commission will be appointed, and proceed to make its inquiry in the beginning of May. I think I may venture to hope that there need be no immediate fear of a collision between the two parties arising out of the state of affairs in Newfoundland; for it is understood on both sides, that during the ensuing fishing season, and while inquiry by the Commission is in progress the English and French commanders are to exercise all necessary forbearance with regard to any occurrence that may lead to a dispute; and all measures of repression on the part of the French Government will be suspended. The Government of France, in acceding to our proposal, at the same time expressed a hope that its having done so would be accepted as a fresh instance of the friendly and conciliatory spirit by which it is actuated in its dealings with England. And at this stage of the proceedings I trust the noble Lord will acknowledge that it is neither wise nor prudent to publish papers bearing on the very points in dispute, which we hope are about to be examined in a spirit of friendly inquiry. There is no positive objection indeed on the part of the Government to publish the correspondence, or extracts from the correspondence, that has passed between the two Governments on this question of the Newfoundland fisheries if the noble Lord choose to move for them; but I do not advise him to do so. With regard both to those and to other papers, I think, as we shall have the Report of the Commissioners themselves in a few months, that will be the natural time to produce them. And I cannot but hope that if mutual moderation and forbearance be exercised, this Commission will pave the way to a final settlement of all the matters in dispute.

MR. LABOUCHERE

Sir, there is no question on which forbearance in discussion, and, of course, in the production of papers, is more important. It has undoubtedly been a source of much irritation between France and England for some years, and it is very desirable a satisfactory conclusion should be arrived at. I do not clearly understand from the right hon. Gentleman whether these Commissioners are to be empowered to conclude a new treaty or convention, or only to ascertain the extreme rights and the extreme duties of both parties under the treaties now existing. [Sir E. B. LYTTON: They are to inquire how the terms of the treaty are carried out by both parties.] I am not disposed to be captious in my criticisms on any course the Government may think calculated to bring these disputes to a satisfactory conclusion; but I do not see how the Commissioners are to find out what are the extreme claims—which are tolerably well known already—and the extreme rights of both parties. The French fishermen have extremely strong notions of what are their rights, and our fishermen are quite as positive about theirs. But, under these circumstances, both French and English have to their credit for a long time acted on a system of mutual forbearance, and the business of fishing has adapted itself in a wonderful manner to this state of things. Consequently there has been much less practical inconvenience than could be supposed possible, considering the variety of points in dispute. This has been fortunate, but I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that the time has arrived when the state of things between France and England should not rest on this mutual forbearance, but be defined by some diplomatic arrangement. The truth is, that as my noble Friend (Viscount Bury) observed—and here I may remark that I am glad that my noble Friend (Viscount Bury), who has spoken with so much ability on the matter, is devoting so much of his attention to colonial subjects, subjects on which his practical experience gives him so good a right to speak in this House—the truth is, the stipulations of these treaties and conventions were made at a time when Newfoundland was a very different place from what it is now; it was long the policy of this country to consider it as a mere fishing station; agriculture was discouraged; the business of the colony was managed by a few merchants from England, and the people were considered mere agents of the fishery. This country did not imagine it made much sacrifice when it gave to France the right to 300 miles of the best part of the coast, to the exclusion of our own fellow-subjects. It was a most awkward concession, and it is most desirable that the dispute, as to the right of settlement on this part of the coast, should be cleared up. My noble Friend has complained that the question has not been taken up in the colony rather than in this country; but a Commission, of which Mr. Thomas, a merchant in Newfoundland, was the member representing English interests, and an officer of the French navy the representative of their rights, in vain attempted to settle the question. Two Commissions which sat in Paris proved equally unsuccessful, and when I had the honour to hold the colonial seals I also attempted to bring the matter to a satisfactory conclusion. Mr. Merivale, of the Colonial Office, and an officer of the French navy, on my suggestion, inquired into the matter, and the result was a convention between the two Governments upon the subjects; but before entering upon that convention I expressly stipulated that it should be of no effect unless it received the sanction of the Legislature of Newfoundland. When it went out to the colony it did not receive much approval there, and eventually fell to the ground. I am bound to say, however, that the French Government never made any complaint of that circumstance, and far from the people of Newfoundland complaining, though there was undoubtedly much irritation at first when it was supposed that we had not reserved their rights, yet when the truth came to be known, we received the expression of their thanks for the manner in which we had reserved their right to be consulted on the question. I am not anxious to defend that Commission, as it never had any validity, but there is another reason for my abstinence. The right hon. Gentleman has informed us that negotiations were about to be renewed between the two Governments, and it would be improper to raise a discussion now on these points which may hereafter come under discussion. There are, however, one or two points of my noble Friend's speech on which I am tempted to say a word. My noble Friend said that the treaty would have given to the French the command of the St. Lawrence. I can assure my noble Friend that so far from that we did not yield a single acre of land to the French which they did not before enjoy by treaty. They had only fishing rights, and as to fortifying the mouths of the St. Lawrence, I can only state that in all the treaties there was the stipulation that they should not remain there over the winter, but only in the fishing season. [Viscount BURY: They are fortifying Miquelon and St. Pierre.] These islands are held under different tenure, but if the French are fortifying them they are doing that in defiance of treaty. With respect to the fortifications, the matter was complained of when I was in office, and my right hon. Friend the then First Lord of the Admiralty sent to inquire into the matter, when it was found that the works were of the most trifling description. If since that period they have become more considerable, that may become a proper subject for remonstrance, but the French derive no right to do so under my convention. It ought also to be remembered that the subject has become greatly complicated in consequence of the reciprocity treaty entered into with the United States, with the full consent of the Newfoundland Legislature, by which the United States obtained the same rights of fishery that we ourselves possess. This has greatly complicated the business, and rendered the French more difficult to be dealt with. The question, however, is now being discussed with the Government of France, and I should think myself very culpable if I said a single word that would embarrass the negotiations. I heartily wish they may be successful; but I do not think the Government will arrive at an amicable solution without cutting the knot. I think both France and England will have to abandon some particular rights; I think the people of Newfoundland should have clearly secured to them the right to cultivate and build upon their own territory. At present the French, by some of the stipulations, have the right to pull down and dismantle buildings erected on certain parts of the coast; no doubt any such Act would cause great irritation. I hope there will be no wish to retain the terms of treaties that are utterly inapplicable to the present time. As to other differences between the fishermen of the two countries, one arises from the large bounty given by the French Government; but I do not think the French fishermen are really so much benefited by this large bounty as they are generally supposed to be. There is sufficient in the waters of Newfoundland for everybody; and no doubt our fishermen, in competition with their French brethren, will conduct their trade hereafter, as they had done hitherto, in a profitable and successful manner.

MR. MILNER GIBSON

said, he had received many communications lately in reference to this question. He was quite as much impressed with the great importance of using forbearance in discussing this question as the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Labouchere), but he should take leave to say that he thought the difficulty of carrying out the last convention on this question arose from the awkwardness of entering into a treaty with France, without giving notice to the Colony of Newfoundland. The Newfoundland Local Legislature, who had upon every constitutional principle a veto upon any such arrangement between England and France, had not been consulted previously on the negotiations which had been going on, and when the treaty was concluded between England and France the Local Legislature of Newfoundland unanimously rejected it. It appeared to him that when the rights of a third party were concerned, and negotiations were going on between two other countries on those rights, that third party ought to be consulted, in order to ascertain how far the arrangements in progress would meet with their assent. If that course had been pursued in this case, the awkwardness of entering into a treaty with France on the subject of the Newfoundland fisheries, and then abandoning it, would not have occurred. What had happened ought to be a warning to us against dealing with the rights of our fellow subjects in Newfoundland without coming to a previous understanding with the local authorities. The Minister of the Crown had no warrant for ceding the right of this country or of a colony to any foreign Power without the consent of Parliament and of the Colonial Legislature. The Committee of the New- foundland Assembly stated that for years previous to this treaty being entered into there had been perfect harmony between the French and English fishermen. An unarmed schooner had been found sufficient to take care of the Labrador fisheries, and a single boat's crew stationed at St. John's had contrived to keep the fishermen of the two countries within their respective boundaries. When all was going on thus quietly, why was it necessary to disturb so satisfactory a state of things by commencing a treaty with France? And where was the prudence of surrendering to a foreign Power the privileges of the people of Newfoundland, without first ascertaining that their local Legislature agreed to the bargain? The treaty with France was, moreover, very onesided, yielding up to that country most important British rights without any adequate equivalent, or indeed any equivalent whatever. The relinquishment in favour of France of the exclusive right for fishing purposes of a large portion of the Newfoundland coast would have rendered it necessary for very many English settlers on the banks of the different salmon streams to give up a valuable property and leave the homesteads in which they and their ancestors had long supported themselves and their families in respectability and independence. As the right hon. Gentleman opposite, however, had stated that Commissioners were about to attempt a settlement of this question between England and France, the noble Lord would do well not to press his Motion to a division.

MR. WYLD

said, he knew that the people of Newfoundland were willing to make great concessions, and he trusted therefore that if a mixed Commission were appointed more than one individual would be chosen to represent each side. The Legislature of Newfoundland should be invited to select a delegate to sit on the Commission, whose acts should he binding upon the people of that colony. This would lead to an arrangement that was likely to give satisfaction to all parties.

VISCOUNT BURY

said, he wished to be allowed to add one or two questions to Ids previous statement, which had been suggested to him in the course of the debate. The people of St. George's Bay were warned off from fishing by the French authorities at the close of the last season. Those people amounted to about 1,100; they had always obtained their winter supplies from. St. John's on the credit of the fishing of the ensuing year. But last year they were told they would not be allowed to fish, and they would have starved if the people of St. John's had not sent them relief. He wished to ask the Government if those people of St. George's Bay would receive any compensation for the loss they had sustained, and if they would obtain leave to fish next year? He was told that Commissioners were to be appointed to inquire into the Newfoundland fisheries; but he wanted to know what these Commissioners were to do, or what orders they were to receive. Were they to investigate treaties already existing, or to settle the preliminaries of another treaty.

MR. SEYMOUR FITZGERALD

said, he would not enter into the merits of the convention signed by the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Labouchere), but this he must say, that it was not open to the charges brought against it by the right hon. Member for Ashton (Mr. M. Gibson). The right hon. Gentleman had shown himself as unwilling to sacrifice the rights of the people of Newfoundland as any gentleman could be, because he had inserted an express article in the convention making it of no force whatever until it had received the assent of the Newfoundland Legislature. The right hon. Member for Ashton said that the fishermen were acting harmoniously. That might be true, but it was beside the question. The noble Lord had asked whether any negotiations were at present going on between the French and English Governments on this subject. In reply he had to state that the French naval authorities last year gave notice that they were determined to insist on their extreme rights under the treaty. Commissioners were therefore appointed to ascertain as nearly as they could what were the exact rights of both sides under existing treaties. They were to ascertain how far those rights had been exceeded—if they had been exceeded at all—either on the one side or the other; but they were strictly precluded from entering into any discussion whatever by which the rights of the parties should in future be bound. He believed that that was all the noble Lord asked for, and he would, of course, rest satisfied at hearing that those orders had already been given by the Government. The hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Wyld) suggested that there should be associated with the British Minister a Commissioner who should have the confidence of the Legislature of Newfoundland. He (Mr. Fitz- Gerald) was happy to say that that hon. Member's wish had been also anticipated. There were two Commissioners to be appointed on each side. And so far as the Commissioners for England were concerned, one had been already appointed by the Government at home, and one was to be nominated upon the recommendation of the Legislature of Newfoundland. He should guard himself, however, by observing that Her Majesty's Government had sent out a despatch in which they said they should be happy to nominate a Commissioner at the recommendation of the Legislature of Newfoundland; but no reply had as yet been received from the Colony to that communication. Although no negotiations were going on at the present time, Her Majesty's Government were fully alive to the necessity of protecting the interests of our fisheries. Negotiations would probably take place at a future time, and he apprehended therefore that under the circumstances the noble Lord would not persevere in his Motion for these papers.

SIR HARRY VERNEY

said, he thought it not too much to say that large tracts would have been preserved to this country which had now been lost, through carelessness or ignorance on the part of the British authorities, if in former Parliaments there had been some individual as well acquainted with the subject as the noble Lord. As instances he might refer to the cession of 500 miles of the coast of the Pacific, known as Russian America, the island of Java, and various other places.

VISCOUNT BURY

said, he would withdraw his Motion.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.