Commons Sitting of 12 February 1864

MINUTES.
NEW MEMBERS SWORN—Thomas Fleming, esquire, for Winchester; John Henderson, esquire, for Durham City.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee—Committee report Progress.
PUBLIC BILLS—Resolution in Committee—Tests Abolition (Oxford)*.
Ordered—Tests Abolition (Oxford)*; Bank Acts (Scotland)*.
First Reading—County Courts (Ireland)* [Bill 12]; Trespass (Ireland)* [Bill 13]; Appeal in Criminal Cases Act Amendment* [Bill 14]; Vestry Cess Abolition (Ireland) * [Bill 15]; Bank Acts (Scotland) * [Bill 16]; Election Petitions* [Bill 17]; Tests Abolition (Oxford)* [Bill 18].
Committee—Sir John Lawrence's Salary* [Bill 10].
Report—Sir John Lawrence's Salary*.

THEATRES (PRECAUTIONS AGAINST FIRE).—QUESTION.
MR. W. EWARTsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether it is the intention of the Government to introduce any measure for the protection of Actresses and Actors from the danger of their dresses taking fire, to which they are now exposed at the Theatres?
SIR GEORGE GREY, in reply, said, the attention of the Lord Chamberlain had been very carefully directed to the subject of affording protection against accidents by fire, owing to the inflammable nature of the

495
dresses worn by the performers. He, at the beginning of last year, addressed a circular letter to the managers of Theatres on the subject, and, after the occurrence of the recent lamentable accident at the Pavilion Theatre, he called a meeting of managers, at which the matter was very fully gone into. The result was that, after the most careful consideration, the Lord Chamberlain felt satisfied that it would be inexpedient to attempt to enforce by Act of Parliament the use of any particular means for effecting the object to which his (Sir George Grey's) hon. Friend referred. The Lord Chamberlain, however, embodied his views upon the subject in a memorandum which he had sent, signed by himself, to the managers of Theatres, accompained by a series of regulations for the more effectual prevention of accidents, and which were required to be posted up in a conspicuous part of each theatre. If the hon. Member would move for the production of those documents he would be able to see exactly how the matter stood.

DISEASED CATTLE.

  QUESTION.
  MR. R. LONGsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been drawn to the statements made by the Government Commissioner, Professor Gamzee, as to the losses inflicted on British farmers by the importation of diseased cattle and sheep; and whether it is his intention to propose any remedy for the evils complained of?
  SIR GEORGE GREY: My hon. Friend the Under Secretary for the Home Department will shortly give notice of the introduction of a Bill, or rather two Bills, on the subject.

CASE OF CAPTAIN MELVILLE WHITE.

  QUESTION.
  COLONEL FRENCHsaid, he rose to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, What compensation has been awarded to Captain Melville White for the treatment he received from the Peruvian Government?
  MR. LAYARDsaid, he regretted that he was unable to say when the Government would get the award in question. The matter had been referred, as his hon. and gallant Friend was aware, to the Hamburg Government, and they had placed the
  496
  papers connected with it in the hands of a distinguished lawyer, but his Report had not yet been received.

NEW COURTS OF JUSTICE.

  QUESTION.
  MR. MONTAGUE SMITHsaid, he wished to ask the First Commissioner of Works, Whether it is the intention of the Government to introduce in the present Session any measure for building new Courts of Justice in the Metropolis, or for improving the state of the existing Courts?
  MR. COWPERsaid, in reply, that it was the intention of the Government to introduce a Bill for the concentration of the Courts of Law and Equity on a site to be purchased between Carey Street and the Strand, in accordance with the recommendation of the Royal Commission which had reported on the subject.

CHARITABLE BEQUESTS (IRELAND).

  QUESTION.
  MR. HASSARDsaid, he wished to ask Mr. Attorney General for Ireland, if it is his intention to introduce any measure during this Session for the amendment of the Laws relating to Charitable Donations and Bequests in Ireland?
  MR. O'HAGAN (ATTORNEY GENERAL FOR IRELAND)said, in reply, that he had, since last Session, given to the subject the best attention in his power. He had been in communication with some of the most active and influential of the Charity Commissioners in Ireland, and he had found that, although some small increase of jurisdiction might be thought desirable, they were not at present disposed to accept larger powers or greater responsibility. Their services being gratuitous, the Commissioners had power to withdraw at their pleasure; and the alternative open to the Government if they were to proceed on a different system from the present would simply be, that they should substitute for it one of a very expensive and very complicated character He was not aware that there was any necessity for taking that course, or any such decided expression of opinion in Ireland as would justify the Government in adopting it. He believed that so far as matters had gone, meetings of the Board had not been held with sufficient regularity, and of which complaint had been made; but then there had been latterly considerable changes in it, and the attendance was, he understood, much better than

  497
  it had been previously. Under all the circumstances of the case the Government did not deem it expedient to introduce a Bill on the subject.

  DOCK AT MALTA.—QUESTION.
  CAPTAIN TALBOTsaid, he rose to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty, Whether the Admiralty still adhere to their project of constructing a dock at the head of the Marda at Malta, notwithstanding the strong objections offered to it by Admiral Sir William Martin and Vice Admiral Codrington, as appears in the papers lying upon the table?
  LORD CLARENCE PAGETin reply said, the Admiralty had seen no reason for altering their opinion and decision with regard to the new dock at Malta. They were certainly not disposed, under any circumstances, to make any alteration that would break faith with the Maltese Colonial Government. Nevertheless, there were such conflicting opinions entertained by various officers and others acquainted with the subject, that the Admiralty had given directions for an eminent engineer to proceed to Malta to inquire into and report thereon, and he hoped the Report would be ready shortly after Easter. He would take that opportunity of saying that the Navy Estimates, which he had that night laid upon the table, would be printed and in the hands of hon. Members on Monday, and he hoped to take the discussion on them on Monday week.

EXECUTION OF THE CONDEMNED PIRATES.—THE "FLOWERY LAND."

  QUESTION.
  SIR GEORGE BOWYERsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether the Government intend to take any steps, by application to the Court of Queen's Bench or otherwise, to prevent the execution of seven men simultaneously at Newgate?
  SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, in reply, that two days ago he received a letter from the Under Sheriff of London and Middlesex, written by the desire of the Sheriffs, requesting him to make an order that these prisoners should be sent to different seaports throughout the country to be executed there, in order that a greater impression might be made upon the seafaring population; and stating that the lion. Baronet the Member for Dundalk (Sir
  498
  George Bowyer) had suggested that, if his (Sir George Grey's) powers were not sufficient, an application might be made to the Court of Queen's Bench to make such an order. He replied that he had himself no power to make such an order, nor did he think that there was sufficient reason to justify an application to the Court of Queen's Bench. The only recent cases in which that Court had made such orders were cases in which there was a disputed jurisdiction, and it was doubtful upon whom rested the legal obligation to carry the sentence into execution. No such doubts existed in the present case, and therefore he did not see that there was any reason for departing from the usual course.

  UNITED STATES.—MR. SEWARD'S DESPATCH OF JULY 11.—QUESTION.
  LORD ROBERT CECILsaid, he rose to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he intends to adhere to his Statement, that no verbal communication was made by Mr. Adams to Earl Russell of the substance of the Despatch addressed by Mr. Seward to Mr. Adams on the 11th day of July, or whether he desires to withdraw it? It had been whispered that a noble Lord, whose statement the hon. Gentleman was bound to respect, had given an account of the proceedings diametrically opposite to his own.
  MR. LAYARD: I think, Sir, I might appeal to the House whether this Question is not entirely opposed to Parliamentary usage, and whether I might not decline to reply to it. My respect for the House, however, leads me to answer the noble Lord. I stated most distinctly the other evening that that Despatch had not been communicated to Earl Russell, and that no written or verbal communication in the sense of that Despatch had been made to the noble Lord. I trust that now at least the noble Lord opposite will be satisfied.
  LORD ROBERT CECIL: The hon. Gentleman's words are still indefinite enough to make me desire to address to him another question, and that is, Whether any verbal communication intimating the nature of that Despatch has been made to the noble Lord?
  MR. LAYARD: I believe, Sir, that a Member of this House answers as a gentleman and a man of honour, and not as a special pleader.

DENMARK AND GERMANY.—INTEGRITY OF DANISH MONARCHY.—REVOCATION OF THE CONSTITUTION.

  QUESTION.
  MR. PEACOCKEsaid, he rose to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether, after the answer of the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to a question put to him by the hon. Baronet the Member for Buckingham (Sir Harry Verney), he is prepared to abide by or to withdraw a statement to the following effect:—
  "We propose that a Protocol, which is equivalent to a Treaty, should be signed in London by the representatives of England, France, Austria, Prussia, Russia, Sweden, and Denmark, and that by that Protocol Denmark should promise to take the earliest steps for revoking the Constitution of November; that time should be given her; that England, France, Russia, and Sweden should be, as it were, pledges to Austria and Prussia for the fulfilment of that condition; and that Austria and Prussia should accept that Treaty guarantee in lieu of the territorial guarantee which they demand."
  And, in the event of his wishing to abide by it, to ask him what was the nature of the guarantee? The statement of the Under Secretary to which he referred was as follows:—
  "Her Majesty's Government could, of course, give no guarantee that the Rigsraad, which was a constitutional assembly, would revoke the Constitution; that, of course, would remain for the Rigsraad to decide. What the Government proposed was, that a Protocol should be signed in London between the Powers who were parties to the Treaty of 1852, by which the Danish Government should undertake to call together the Rigsraad for the purpose of submitting to them a proposal for the withdrawal of the Constitution."
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: I think, Sir, we seem to be getting very much into special pleading. I adhere entirely to the statement which the hon. Gentleman has read, and I adhere to the plain grammatical meaning of the words of that statement. What we proposed was that there should be a Protocol signed in London, in which Protocol Denmark should give a diplomatic engagement which might be more satisfactory to Austria and Prussia than the direct promises to them which they appeared to think were not sufficiently strong—that in that Protocol Denmark should give a diplomatic engagement to Austria and Prussia, taken in the presence of the other Powers, to revoke the Constitution as soon as the Rigsraad could be assembled and the proposal could be made. We proposed that, England, France, Russia, and
  500
  Sweden being witnesses to that engagement, Austria and Prussia should accept that diplomatic security in lieu of the territorial security that they wanted to obtain. We gave no guarantee. [An hon. MEMBER: You said so.] England gave no guarantee other than being a witness to the engagement, which would have been more binding upon Denmark than a simple assertion made on her part to Austria and Prussia. We thought that a reasonable proposal, and we thought that a very sufficient security; but Austria and Prussia, being bent upon obtaining great renown and great military glory, and thinking that that was to be most easily got by attacking the little State and small army of Denmark, declined that proposal and said that it was too late, as their troops had marched. I never said that England was to give any other guarantee than the security which Austria and Prussia would have obtained by the formal and diplomatic engagement of Denmark, made in the presence of the other Powers, who were witnesses to it, and the consequent greater moral obligation on the part of Denmark to make it good than would otherwise have existed.
  Lord ROBERT CECIL: Before going to the Orders of the Day, I desire to ask the noble Lord at the head of the Government, if he can give the House any information concerning a statement which has appeared in a paper usually supposed to be well informed, that an Armistice has been proposed by the English Government on the evacuation of Schleswig, barring the island of Alsen, by the Danes. I wish to know if such a proposal has been made?
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: Her Majesty's Government, in concert with France, Russia, and Sweden, and with the concurrence, I believe, of Austria, have suggested such an arrangement to Prussia—we do not know with what success.

  RAILWAY SCHEMES (METROPOLIS).
  MR. MILNER GIBSON brought up a Message from the Lords.
  That they do agree to the appointment of a Committee, consisting of Five Lords, to join with a Committee of this House, consisting of Five Members, to consider the best method of dealing with the Railway Schemes proposed to be sanctioned within the limits of the Metropolis by Bills to be introduced in the present Session (pursuant to Message of Tuesday last); and their Lordships propose that the said

  501
  joint Committee do meet in the Painted Chamber at half past Three of the clock on Monday next.
  Lords' Message considered.
  Ordered,
  That the Committee appointed by this House to join with the Select Committee of the Lords "to consider the best Method of dealing with the Railway Schemes proposed to be sanctioned within the Limits of the Metropolis by Bills to be introduced in the present Session, and to report their opinion whether any, and, if any, what Schemes should not be proceeded with during the present Session;" do meet the Lords Committee in the Painted Chamber on Monday next, at half-past Three of the o'clock.
  MESSAGE TO THE LORDS—To acquaint their Lordships that this House hath directed the Committee appointed by them to join with the Select Committee of the Lords, "to consider the best method of dealing with the Railway Schemes proposed to be sanctioned within the limits of the Metropolis by Bills to be introduced in the present Session, and to report their opinion whether any, and, if any, what Schemes should not be proceeded with during the present Session," to meet the Committee appointed by their Lordships in the Painted Chamber on Monday next, at half-past Three of the clock, as desired by their Lordships.
  Ordered,
  That the Select Committee appointed to join with the Select Committee appointed by the Lords "to consider the best method of dealing with the Railway Schemes proposed to be sanctioned within the limits of the Metropolis by Bills to be introduced in the present Session, and to report their opinion whether any, and if any, what schemes should not be proceeded with during the present Session," have power to agree in the appointment of a Chairman of such Joint Committee.—(Mr. Milner Gibson.)

  SUPPLY.
  Order for Committee read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair."

  UNITED STATES.—CAPTURE OF BRITISH SHIPS.—PAPERS MOVED FOR.
  MR. SEYMOUR FITZGERALD: Sir, in rising in pursuance to the notice I have given to call the attention of the House to the circumstances attending the capture by Federal cruisers of certain British vessels, namely—the Springbok, the barque Science, captured at Matamoras; the ship Margaret and Jessie, and the Saxon, cap-
  502
  tured within the jurisdiction of the Colony of the Cape of Good Hope, and to move an address for Papers which will greatly inform the House both as to the events that have taken place, and as to the conduct which Her Majesty's Government have thought it their duty to pursue; I beg to assure the House that it is far from my intention to make any observations, or to embark in a course of discussion that shall tend in the slightest degree to add to that irritation which unfortunately exists on both sides of the Atlantic. And I shall very much regret if the observations I am about to make should lead to a general discussion of the relations existing between the two countries—relations which at the present moment I fear are far from satisfactory, if not alarming. I am sure there is no Member of the House, who, however much he may desire, when the necessity arises, to assert in his place in Parliament the rights and dignity of his Sovereign and his country, who will not at this time rather allay than increase that irritation which I fear exists between the two countries. Therefore, I shall limit my observations strictly to the subject to which my notice refers. I shall scrupulously avoid alluding even to that correspondence which has passed between the two Governments in reference to the Alabama and the Oreto, her sister ship, on which I think claims have been somewhat inconsiderately urged on the one side, and, at the same time, I am bound to say, properly and justly repudiated on the other. Neither shall I refer to the course pursued by Her Majesty's Government with regard to the detention of certain vessels in course of construction at Liverpool, nor to the correspondence referring to it. My object on the present occasion has an English interest only. It is to ascertain the details of captures which have made a most painful impression on the public mind; and also to ascertain whether, as I hope will prove to be the case, the course pursued by Her Majesty's Government has been such as becomes a British Government. Before I enter into a consideration of the Question now before us there is one observation I cannot refrain from making. It is this, that I think that during the past Session of Parliament, and even at the commencement of the present Session of Parliament, the House of Commons has not been treated by Her Majesty's Government with that candour, fairness, and frankness to which I think it is entitled. I hold in my hand a collection of papers

  503
  given by the Government of the United States, at the earliest moment, to the Congress, which omits no one topic which has been the subject of discussion, either as regards the seizing of vessels from British ports, the enlistment of British subjects, in the military and naval service of either belligerent, or the fitting out and arming of vessels in British ports. On all these subjects the Congress were provided by their Government with the earliest and the fullest, and most ample information; but yet here the House of Commons has been left in the dark as to the circumstances that had transpired—circumstances affecting, not only the commercial interests of the country but its honour and dignity. The Government remain perfectly silent until the information is elicited from them by some hon. Member who is prompted by a constituency or by information he has received to make the inquiry. Now that is a wrong principle for the Government to go on; it is not just to the House of Commons, and, what is more, it is not just to themselves; because their position would be stronger, their language much more powerful, if it was known that their opinions were backed by the entire confidence of a House of Commons possessing a full knowledge of everything that is passing. Now, with reference to the cases of the four vessels as to which my notice particularly refers. I again say I wish to learn from the Government the correct circumstances and the course which the Government has pursued. The first case is that of the Margaret and Jessie. During the past Session of Parliament on three several occasions I attempted to obtain information from the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs on that case; but on those occasions I was answered that I should have the information as soon as Her Majesty's Government obtained it. I have not, however, received it up to this moment. The circumstances of the Margaret and Jessie are these. She is not a British vessel but a Confederate vessel, owned by a Confederate citizen; she was pursued by one of the Federal cruisers into British waters, and for an hour and a half the pursuit was kept up within the jurisdiction of Her Majesty and within the territorial dominion of this country. The Federal cruiser threw shot and shell into the Confederate vessel, and ultimately, after an hour and a half's chase within the limits of English jurisdiction, and at no time more than 400 or 500 yards from the
  504
  land, a shot hit the Confederate vessel, damaged her machinery, and she sunk at a spot not more than 300 yards from one of the Bahamas. The position also was such that the shot and shell sent from the Federal cruiser passed over the Confederate vessel and went crashing into a plantation adjoining the village, on British soil, so that the inhabitants, in fear for their safety, were obliged to quit their habitations and take refuge at a distance. I think that is a most glaring instance of the recklessness which individual commanders in the Federal service have in several cases exhibited in the pursuit of their enemy, and of their total disregard of the rights of other Powers, and a stronger one could not be given. Now, Sir, I wish to know from Her Majesty's Government, what course they have pursued on this subject; and I wish to know if they have placed all the depositions which are in their possession, or which can be procured, before the Federal Government; and whether they have demanded from that Government the satisfaction for this breach of territorial independence of their country to which they are entitled. I am quite aware that the British Government are in possession of those depositions and the correspondence of the Governor of Bahama on the subject; and I further ask the Government for copies of all correspondence with the Governor of the Bahama islands, and all correspondence between the owners of the Margaret and Jessie and the Government of the United States and its representative in London on this subject.
  The next case as to which I desire information, is that of a vessel called the Springbok. The first course adopted by the American Government, in order to put down the trade that had grown up between certain British and neutral ports and the Confederate States, was to capture every vessel they could catch, on the plea that she was about to break the blockade, though really she was bound to a neutral port. I will not say one word with reference to the trade that has sprung up between Nassau and other neutral ports and the Confederate ports. I regret myself the existence of that trade; but, at the same time, the noble Lord at the head of the Foreign Office having in effect said that the trade as far as Nassau was as legitimate as the trade with Liverpool, I or any other port in these islands, it was impossible for the Government to allow it to be interfered with by any process contrary

  505
  to international law. In the case of the Springbok, the Prize Court in the State of New York assumed a position which Prize Courts in the United States had never previously attempted to occupy. The decision of the Prize Court of New York is such that it has not only attracted the attention of all engaged in commercial pursuits in this country, but it has attracted the attention of lawyers and of governments abroad. One of the most eminent lawyers in Paris, closely connected with the Foreign Office of France, has stated the views of the Government of France with reference to the doctrine laid down by the Prize Court in the case of the Springbok; because it does not only concern the Government and the commercial community of this country, but concerns every neutral and maritime power, whose rights are grossly outraged. I do not think it desirable to enter into a discussion on the merits of these decisions, or that the House should constitute itself into a Court of Appeal from the decisions of the Courts of the United States. But it is of importance to call attention to the statement made by M. Vignaud, that this decision involves three important and flagrant violations of international law. First, the arbitrary assimilation and reducing of goods, the subjects of commerce, to what are called contraband of war; secondly, the arbitrary seizure of the whole of the cargo, because amongst it there might be some small articles considered to be contraband; thirdly, the seizure and illegal confiscation of neutral property, under a neutral flag, between two neutral ports, under the pretext that the cargo had an ultimate destination to a belligerent port. If there are three such points as this, is it not time for the Government, not only to make reclamations of right, but to state their opinion that these doctrines are contrary to those hitherto understood and accepted as international law; and that in allowing the case to go to the Supreme Court of the United States, they are not to be understood as giving their adhesion to such questionable doctrines. I wish, therefore, to know from Her Majesty's Government what course they have taken in reference to the decision given by Judge Betts in the Prize Court; and I wish also to ask for copies of the correspondence between the owners of the Springbok and Her Majesty's Government, and between Lord Lyons and the Government of the United States, with reference to the judgment the Prize Court has given.
  506
  The third case is that of the Science, a vessel seized in the waters of Matamoras. This is another remarkable instance showing how the officers of Federal ships have step by step encroached on the rights of neutrals and the principles of international law. The case of the Science is this: She was a British vessel owned at Waterford; she took a cargo for Matamoras, consigned to British merchants resident there. Previous to her capture she had been at Matamoras ten weeks, and had been boarded by several Federal men of war. During that time she had disembarked all her cargo, and it had been sent to Matamoras, and at the time of her capture was in the customhouse in the custody of the Mexican authorities. No doubt could be entertained that the vessel was neutral: she carried a neutral cargo, and there could be no doubt as to her destination, as she was then at her destination and her cargo discharged. On the 5th of November she was seized by the Federal cruiser Virginia, on the ground that the cargo that she had brought was intended for the use of the Confederate Government, although that cargo was then on neutral ground in charge of a neutral Government. The Science was at the time of her seizure engaged in loading a cargo of cotton and hides, which again was neutral property, for this country. She was nevertheless seized by the Government of the United States, and was carried off to New Orleans, where her master and crew were set on shore without money, and without protection, and without any attention being shown to them by any person connected with the Federal Government; and the return cargo at this moment is left to abide the decision of the Prize Court, on the plea that she had brought to a neutral port neutral property which might ultimately reach the hands of the Confederate Government. Now, I think a more outrageous breach of every doctrine of the law of nations could not be mentioned. Therefore I beg the Government to say, whether the facts I have stated are correct, and whether they are prepared to give the House the fullest information as regards these facts, and the course the Government have pursued with reference to them?
  The last case to which I have to call the attention of the House is that of the Saxon, which was captured by the notorious cruiser the Vanderbilt in waters which are within the jurisdiction of the Colony of the Cape of Good Hope. This is a case to which I cannot refer without a feeling of

  507
  pain—I had almost said without a feeling of irritation—for it has resulted in one unfortunate British subject, in his own vessel, under a British flag, in the execution of his duty, and within the jurisdiction of the British Crown and in British waters, being murdered by a person claiming to he a Federal officer. The case of the Saxon is this:—She left Table Bay on the 2nd September last with a cargo of cattle for Ascension, which she reached on the 17th of the month. She proceeded, by orders, from Ascension to Angra Pequina, an island which has been declared by proclamation within the jurisdiction of the Cape of Good Hope. I believe it is stated by the American Government that that proclamation was not officially furnished to them. Whether this is so or not, it will not alter the fact, that on board a British vessel, under a British flag, a British sailor has been murdered by the intemperate conduct of a Federal officer. The Saxon arrived at Angra Pequina in ballast, and the captain received orders to take in a cargo of skins and wool. It was taken from the beach by the crew and some men, but no men belonging to the Atlas were so employed. The importance of this observation is derived from the fact that the Atlas had brought a cargo of coal to the island, which was believed to be for the use of the Confederate cruisers. The Saxon had completed her loading, and was preparing for sea, when on the morning of the 30th October the captain observed a large steamer, which proved to be the Federal cruiser Vanderbilt The cruiser sent an armed boat to the Saxon in charge of Beldon, the senior, and Donoghan, the junior officer. The crew made no resistance. They were told to go below. As Mr. Gray, the mate, was going down the ladder, the American officer Donoghan gave him a push. The mate was turning round to see who pushed him, but was making no resistance. He was unarmed, and had no weapon in his hand. But the American officer deliberately drew his revolver and shot him dead on the spot. There has appeared in the papers a letter purporting to be from Her Majesty's Government to the hon. and gallant Member for Aberdeen, the effect of which was that the Government had represented to the Government of the United States that if the circumstances were as they were represented, it is the opinion of Her Majesty's Government that the American officer ought to be put on his trial for murder. I
  508
  wish to know if the circumstances I have stated are correct, and if that is so, then I say that the course taken by Her Majesty's Government, as represented in the letter I have referred to, is a course not sufficient for the occasion, and unworthy of their position as a British Government. When under the flag of this country, and in British waters, an English subject is brutally murdered, without excuse, offering no resistance, is it sufficient for the Government to say there is good ground, in their opinion, for putting the Federal officer on his trial? Ought not their language rather to have been—"We send you the fullest information we have; if it is correct, we demand as a right that the officer shall be put upon his trial, and receive the punishment his crime deserves?" As regards all these four cases, I have put them fully before the House in no spirit of hostility, but with a view to obtaining clear information as to the spirit in which the Government have acted, and I trust that we shall find their conduct has been such as becomes a British Government and a British nation.
  Amendment proposed,
  To leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that She will be graciously pleased to give directions that there be laid before this House, Copies of all Correspondence with the Governor of the Bahama Islands, with reference to the sinking of the Margaret and Jessie in British waters.
  "Of all Correspondence with the owners of the Margaret and Jessie.
  "Of all Correspondence with the Government of the United States, or their Representative in London, or Lord Lyons, on the same subject.
  "Of all Correspondence between the owners of the Springbok and Her Majesty's Government, and also between Lord Lyons and the Government of the United States, with reference to the judgment of the Admiralty Court at New York.
  "And, of all Correspondence between Her Majesty's Government and the owners of the vessels the Science and the Saxon, and of Her Majesty's Government and the Government of the United States on the same subject,"—(Mr. Seymour Fitz-Gerald,)
  —instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: Sir, I shall have no difficulty in giving the House such information as, I am sure, the House will desire to receive consistently with the course of the negotiations going on with the United States. In the first place, with

  509
  regard to the Margaret and Jessie, I believe that the hon. gentleman's account is substantially accurate. He may rest satisfied both that the Government have taken the course that might have been expected from them, and also that the answer received from the United States tends at least to show no insensibility on their part as to what it would become them to do, assuming the facts related by the hon. Member to be made out to their satisfaction. The hon. Gentleman says he referred to this subject last Session, and was told by my hon. Friend the Under Secretary, that at that time the Government had not received sufficient information. The fact, I believe, is, it was not until a subsequent period that the correspondence commenced, and then on the facts reported to the Government a communication was immediately made to Mr. Seward, who referred to Captain Trenchard, the commander of the Federal cruiser. Captain Trenchard denied that he had chased a Confederate vessel at all within British jurisdiction. At the same time, Mr. Seward said that if it should appear that any act of hostility or pursuit had been committed within the maritime jurisdiction of Great Britain the act would be disavowed, and ample redress would be promptly given. After a short time had been given to the American Government for inquiry, Her Majesty's Government informed Mr. Seward that the facts as originally stated by them had been confirmed by subsequent reports, and they mentioned the circumstance of the balls having struck objects on the shore as making it certain that the firing had taken place within our territorial jurisdiction, and urged that the matter might receive the most prompt attention. Early in September a verbal communication, stating that the matter was still the subject of inquiry, was received from Mr. Seward, and subsequently he applied to Lord Lyons for a copy of the evidence which had been laid before Her Majesty's Government on the question. That was sent in November or December last, and on the 20th of January, Mr. Seward, acknowledging its receipt, said the evidence would receive the most attentive consideration; and if it could be done with due regard to justice and the honour of the United States, it would give the President pleasure to make such a decision as would give satisfaction to Her Majesty's Government; but if further investigation was required, then they reserved to themselves the right to make that in-
  510
  vestigation. I think, therefore, the House will see that Her Majesty's Government have taken exactly the same course with respect to this Confederate vessel as if it had belonged to one of Her Majesty's own subjects. Of course, when there is a controversy as to facts, we cannot, in a highhanded manner, insist at once on a decision being taken on the statement of one side only: we cannot refuse further inquiry, however confident we may be that the evidence is sufficient, or that the investigation, if fairly conducted, can have only one result.
  Now, I come to the second case, which is that of the Springbok; and here I must remind the House how unadvisable it is that questions which are pending before judicial tribunals should be made the subject of discussion here, not only on account of the difficulty which hon. Members must feel in judging questions which, after all, are questions of law, and require some study and knowledge to understand, but because you will be prejudicing the parties concerned if you enter into a premature discussion of the merits of each case. The case of the Springbok has been decided in the Prize Court of the First Jurisdiction, and is now under appeal to the Superior Court. I shall, therefore, take the liberty of saying that, in the remarks which I propose to make, I shall neither state the substance of any representations which, from such imperfect information as we have had, may have been made by Her Majesty's Government; nor, on the other hand, do I intend to express any opinion whatever as to the facts of the case. But with regard to the principles of the judgment of the United States' Prize Court, I should be ashamed of myself if I were not to do justice to that Court, and to the Judge' who presides over it, whatever criticisms and comments may have been made by any writer on the other side of the Channel. Her Majesty's Government have been only very recently supplied with full copies of the judgment pronounced in that case—so recently that I think it not impossible that the French writer to whom my hon. Friend referred, may have proceeded upon some other information than the printed judgment of the learned Judge. But, be that as it may, we all know very well that the French writers do not accept in all respects the same views of maritime and international law which have always prevailed in this country. No doubt if we were to accept their judgment with respect to the decisions of Lord

  511
  Stowell during the last French war, we should say that the greater part of the law laid down by that eminent and learned Judge is wrong. And I will repeat that, though in the judgments of the United States' Prize Court there may be passages open to criticism upon matters of legal theory, and although I am far from saying that they have always applied the principles of law correctly to the facts of the case, yet I am not aware of one single decision pronounced during the war in any one of those courts which does not bear upon the face of it signs of an honest intention to administer the law as received in the United States; and the case of the Springbok is no exception to that rule. In all the three points to which my hon. Friend has referred, whether or no the principles were rightly applied to the facts and evidence, the decision come to was based on principles, be they right or be they wrong, which were principles of our own Prize Courts in the war with France. In the first place, my hon. Friend has said that the presence of a limited quantity of contraband has been made to affect the cargo as a whole. In the decision I find a very considerable quantity of contraband stated to have been proved in evidence; some articles, such as army blankets, cavalry boots, and so on, might perhaps, if they stood alone, have been justly regarded as ambiguous. But there were 360 gross of brass navy buttons marked "C. S.N.," Confederate States Navy, having a character entirely unambiguous, and giving a character to the rest. Our courts have laid down that when you find the same persons who are concerned in shipping contraband cargo concerned also in shipping cargo not contraband, you may confiscate the whole of it. I cannot adopt, therefore, the criticism of the French writer upon the principle on which the United States' Prize Court has acted, because that principle is, so far, exactly the same as has been laid down in our own courts. But there is another principle which requires to be enunciated with more distinctness than has been done by my hon. Friend. My hon. Friend in ambiguous terms has spoken as if the Court had decided that the mere fact, that the goods on board might ultimately find their way to a belligerent, although they were being actually transported to Nassau, a neutral port, was sufficient for the condemnation of the cargo. If that were so I should entirely agree with my hon. Friend and say,
  512
  that was a principle unknown to international law, and one against which this country ought to protest. But that is not the ground upon which the judgment is based. It is based upon this: that upon the evidence, rightly or wrongly, the learned Judge came to the conclusion that the direct destination of the cargo was to the Confederate States. Judge Betts, in delivering judgment in this case, says—
  "I am entirely satisfied, from all the evidence in the case, that the cargo of the Springbok was intended to be delivered in the enemy's country, by transhipment at Nassau into a vessel in which it should be carried through the blockade, and that such was the intended destination of the cargo on its departure from England."
  I hope the Court of Appeal will do justice, if the facts are not such as to justify this conclusion; but if the conclusion of fact on the part of the Court of First Instance was just, that is a principle of law which has been acted upon in this country. Lord Stowell, in his judgment in the Thomyris case, says—
  "It is a clear and settled principle that the mere transhipment of a cargo at an intermediate port will not break the continuity of the voyage, which can only be affected by a previous actual incorporation into the common stock of the country where the transhipment takes place. If there was nothing more than a transhipment of the cargo from one vessel to another, that will not alter the transaction in any respect, and it must still be considered as the same continuous voyage to the port where the cargo was ultimately to be delivered."
  It is of great consequence that those of our merchants who are engaged in this contraband trade should understand these things, and should know that the law of nations is not so weak and so easily eluded as to be unable to draw the distinction between the two cases. In this very judgment the Judge says distinctly, that if the articles, contraband or not contraband, had really to be delivered at Nassau and left there, the cargo would not have been condemned; and that is the principle of our own courts. It is, of course, possible that the Judge of the American court may have been wrong in his facts, but the question is now one for a Court of Appeal; and we must not be drawn by French authority, Confederate authority, or any other authority, into denying those principles of law which were built up and established by ourselves during the French war.
  With regard to the third case, which is in its earliest stage, as far as our information goes, the facts reported to us corre-

  513
  spond very much with what has been stated by my hon. Friend, and there was only one course which the Government could take—namely, to represent to the United States' Government, that if it were really true that a ship which had bonâ fide imported goods of any description into Mexico had been afterwards seized because she was loading cotton which may have come from the Confederate States, this Government cannot possibly acquiesce in that seizure; and if any Prize Court of the United States should on such grounds condemn the vessel, which I think improbable, Her Majesty's Government could not acquiesce in such a decision. But the Government have had information, as yet, from one side only, although, as it came from a respectable quarter, they do not doubt its truth. All the Government could do was to transmit the statements made to them to the proper quarter, with a representation that the case is one deserving the prompt and serious attention of the United States' Government, and that they trust it will be dealt with in the same manner as the United States' Government have professed to act in similar cases, and not only have professed, but have really acted. For that case of the Science, so far as at present appears, is precisely the same as that of the Labuan, which actually passed through the Prize Court, and was released on the ground that the circumstances did not justify the capture.
  I come now to the case of the Saxon, and here I must concur with my hon. Friend in expressing my deepest regret for the occurrence which has taken place; for if the information is correct—and there is no reason to doubt its correctness—a most wanton and barbarous murder was committed on an unoffending person on board that ship. The same information which we have received also leads us to hope, that as soon as the circumstances are known in the United States the Government will hasten to make such reparation as is in its power. When the matter came to the knowledge of Captain Baldwin, of the Vanderbilt, he expressed his regret in terms becoming an officer in his position. With respect to other information which we have received, as to this ship, I must use some degree of reserve. There are things which might hot be quite to the interest of the owners if I were to make them the subject of attention in this House. The Saxon was seized by the United States' ship Vanderbilt as a prize, and
  514
  taken to America, where it now awaits the judgment of a Prize Court. On what grounds I can only conjecture. Her Majesty's Government sent instructions to Lord Lyons to represent the circumstances, so far as they were known, to the Government of the United States. At first sight, at all events, it appears extraordinary that a ship belonging to the Cape Colony, which could not possibly be suspected of an attempt to break the blockade or to carry contraband to the Confederate States of America, should be seized; but I should be uncandid if I were to say that no information has reached Her Majesty's Government of a character to enable them to conjecture what answer may possibly be given to an inquiry on the subject. If our conjecture be right, the answer would be that the case was about to be tried in the Prize Courts, where the validity of the facts and the grounds on which the law applied to them would be the subject of investigation, and therefore we must wait to know what those grounds are before Her Majesty's Government can decide upon the course they should adopt with respect to the capture of that ship, or say or do anything which in the Prize Court might operate to the prejudice of those who would there be the claimants of the vessels. I must, however, make an observation upon what has fallen from the hon. Gentleman. He has spoken as if this ship was taken within British jurisdiction. That I believe to be a mistake. The fact is, that the island referred to by the hon. Gentleman was at one time proposed, by the Colonial authorities, to be annexed to the Colony of the Cape; and in 1861 Sir George Grey, the Governor of the Cape, issued a proclamation, subject to Her Majesty's confirmation, declaring the island to be so annexed. That confirmation, however, never was given, and possession of it was never taken in Her Majesty's name, or by Her authority; so that we have no right or title, as between ourselves and the United States, to represent that island as part of Her Majesty's dominions. The mainland opposite the island does not belong to the Colony of the Cape, and, under all these circumstances, the case is one simply of capture, though requiring the most grave consideration on the part of the United States. With regard to this case, the hon. Gentleman expressed his astonishment that Her Majesty's Government had merely represented to the Government of the United States that, if the facts reported to them were

  515
  correct, it appeared that a murder had been committed, for which the murderer ought to be brought to trial. I want, then, to hear what he would have done. It appeared from his statement that he would have done the same thing, only in more flourishing language; but I cannot see that a remonstrance is less in point of gravity because it is made in terms of moderation and courtesy. With regard to the production of papers, the Government have no motive, as far as they are concerned, to withhold them; and if the House gives credit to the statement I have made with regard to the Margaret and Jessie and the Science, I believe Her Majesty's Government would appear to have taken such a course as the country would wish; but I submit that it would be much wiser not to press for such papers while negotiations are pending. The object of the Government is to bring these communications to a successful result. The effect of producing papers and taking discussions on them may possibly be different in this country from what it is in the United States, the Government of which have produced papers of the kind. They, of course, know best what they ought to do on the point; but I have a feeling that some negotiations would be prosecuted with better chance of success if they were not made the subject of comment in all the newspapers of the American Union. Remarks which may be of an irritating nature, and open to answer, might possibly thwart, rather than assist, the course of pending negotiations. Therefore I would humbly recommend to the House to abstain from calling for these papers until the negotiations are brought to an end. With respect to the Saxon, I do not think that it would be expedient in the interest of the parties concerned that the papers should be given.
  LORD ROBERT CECIL: Sir, I do not think the explanation of the hon. and learned Attorney General, able and ingenious as it was, will be very satisfactory to the commercial community of this country, or to those whose interests are compromised by the course of action taken by the United States. The practice of the Government, as we have often had reason to complain in respect to several matters which have occupied our attention, has been to withdraw all information from the cognizance of the House, and to the utmost possible extent to neutralize that prerogative of supervision which is one of the attributes this House
  516
  should most jealously cherish. They have done it at times by refusing papers, or delaying papers; at others by making unintelligible answers to questions which have been subsequently contradicted elsewhere. But I think the Attorney General has done it in quite as effective, though in a more ingenious way, when he tells us he absolutely declines to go into any of the evidence upon which these condemnations of the property of British merchants has taken place. It is quite obvious that however accurate the law laid down by the tribunals of the United States may be, yet those tribunals, if they choose to stretch their facts to meet their law, can commit any amount of injustice on the property of the merchants. It is of no use to tell us what the law is; I should have a poor opinion of the acumen of the Government of the United States if they gave us false law, when they could so much more easily have recourse to false facts. If their law is false, reference can be made to Lord Stowell, and they can be told that their law is wrong; but a far more simple and obvious course for them to take is to stretch and distort the facts. On all occasions the Attorney General is accustomed to express an unlimited admiration of the courts of the United States. The sentiment is a novel one in this House and in this country. I do not think that the hon. and learned Gentleman was ever so strongly inspired before it became a matter of Government policy to yield everything the United States may demand. But be that as it may, I do claim for this House the right of discussing the evidence on which the decisions of the American courts are rested, and to exact from the Attorney General an account of the reasons why he acquiesces in what appears to be a manifest injustice against British subjects. The question of the vessels condemned in the Prize Courts is far from being the gravest charge of the hon. Member for Horsham. The gravest of the charges was the murder case; and in respect to that murder case all we are informed of is that our Government have told the United States that it deserves their gravest consideration. The Attorney General told us also that the captain of the Vanderbilt, Captain Baldwin, had expressed his regret at the occurrence in terms which became his position. I cannot help remembering that this is not the first case of the murder of a British subject in foreign parts which we have dealt with during the present Session—during

  517
  even the present week. I cannot help contrasting the manner in which Her Majesty's Government dealt with another case where a British subject was murdered, not in the execution of his duty, but in a somewhat questionable position—not by a reputed officer of a foreign state, but by a mere ordinary swordsman. In the latter case the British Government were not satisfied with polite expressions of regret, or with declaring that the matter "deserved the gravest consideration." I want to see some of the energy displayed at Kagosima applied to the murder committed by the officer of the United States. Now, Sir, we must not run away with the idea that we can take this case in an isolated way. We must not imagine that we can burn towns at one end of the world for the murder of a British subject, and be satisfied with a few polite expressions in the other in a similar case of murder at the other end, without foreign nations observing the contrast. The contrast between the ordinary policy of this Government towards America, and perhaps I might add to other Powers, such as Russia—the contrast between that policy and the policy we have pursued in the East has created a most bitter feeling of contempt amongst all those who criticise us abroad. Two years ago a movement was made in this House with respect to the American blockade, and the Attorney General then defended that blockade with singular skill and ingenuity. Being however rather hard driven in his legal argument, the hon. and learned Gentleman resorted to a theological argument, and told us that we ought to respect the blockade, because we ought to do to others as we would that they should do unto us. For my own part I failed at the time to understand what part the Confederates bore in the application of that golden rule, but still it had a great effect upon the House. I wonder if the hon. and learned Gentleman thinks that that practice of Christian love, however estimable and admirable, can be applied in a one-sided and partial manner without exposing us to awkward misconstructions. If a man runs away in battle his conduct may be interpreted in various ways. You may say, taking a vulgar view of it, he runs away because be is afraid; or you may take a charitable view, and say he runs away because he is actuated by a profound conviction of the horrors of war; or you may say he has a Christian appreciation of
  518
  doing to his neighbour as he would that his neighbour should do unto him. But it will always be necessary, if you are inclined to examine whether his peculiar conduct is to be accounted for upon one theory or the other, to see what he does when he deals with an adversary weaker than himself. If you find that he has no scruples about kicking the lesser antagonist, then you may fairly come to the conclusion that all his professions of moderation and humanity are simply disguises for his terror of a powerful opponent. Such, I am afraid, is the kind of criticism to which the policy of Her Majesty's Government in this and other matters is exposing us abroad. Our character among foreign nations is rapidly declining. There is a fearful contrast between the conduct of the Government towards the strong and their conduct towards the weak. Unlimited ferocity in the East, unlimited humiliation in the West—such is the simple programme of the policy of Her Majesty's Ministers. I do not think that the British people will very long endure the humiliation through which the policy of the Government is dragging them. This case and that case may perhaps be overlooked, but if I am not greatly mistaken a bitter feeling of indignation is arising and spreading every day. If the conduct of the Government is not more in conformity with the generous instincts of a people whose principle it is to show boldness towards the strong and tenderness towards the weak—I venture to say there will be an outbreak of indignation that will hurry us into some war far more disastrous than those which Government are seeking in so humiliating a manner to avoid.
  COLONEL SYKESsaid, that Mr. Gray, the unfortunate chief mate of the Saxon, who was murdered by Lieutenant Donoghan, of the Vanderbilt, belonged to a family in his constituency, and his death had left his wife and infant children destitute. The sorrowing relatives had forwarded to him a copy of the South African Advertiser, dated the 19th December, 1863, containing the sworn depositions of the master and several of the able seamen of the barque Saxon, taken before the resident magistrate of Cape Town, on the 2nd December, 1863. It appeared that that vessel arrived at Angra Pequina Island on the 16th of October, spent eleven days there in getting; ready for sea, and then took in her cargo, which consisted not of contraband of war, but of skins and wool. On the 30th Oc-

  519
  tober she was just about to weigh anchor when a vessel appeared in the offing, and an armed boat's crew came on board, under the command of one of the lieutenants of the Federal American ship of war Vanderbilt. The officer demanded the captain's papers, which, after some demur, were given, and then returned to his ship, leaving his men on board the barque. Soon after, another boat's crew, also armed, boarded the Saxon. A junior officer, named Donoghan, accompanied the party. The crew were driven below, and Captain Shephard was sent below to his own cabin, and a sentry posted at the door. He came up again, but was once more ordered down. What followed was told in the depositions of Horace Carew, able seaman, one of the Saxon crew, who swore—
  "Captain Shephard then went aft, and it was then I saw Mr. Donoghan standing in the break of the poop, with several of his own men near him. Mr. Gray was half-way up the ladder, when he was ordered down by Mr. Donoghan. I was distant about six or eight yards from them. Mr. Donoghan said 'Go down.' Mr. Gray did not answer or do anything, when the officer repeated the order for him to go down, adding, 'or I will shoot you.' Mr. Gray at the time was facing him, when the officer pushed him on the right shoulder with his left hand, and Mr. Gray stumbled and tried to recover himself, and, as he turned his face towards the officer, he (that is the latter) drew a revolver and shot him."
  The Captain (Shephard) states, that the bullet struck Mr. Gray in the back of the neck, so that the unfortunate man was not presenting his front to his murderer when this most wanton and atrocious act was committed. Mr. Gray was unarmed, and so also were the other men of the Saxon. Captain Baldwin of the Vanderbilt ordered Captain Shephard to come on board; but he did not at first allude to the death of Mr. Gray; subsequently, however, he expressed his regret at it, but no man with the common feelings of humanity could do otherwise. One of the officers said, the murderer was under arrest. There was a sad want of courtesy, to say the least of it, in the Americans not permitting any of the crew of the Saxon to follow the body of their deceased countryman when it was carried on shore for burial. An officer of the Vanderbilt took charge of the funeral, but the second mate of the Saxon slipped into the boat in the dark, and, in spite of the prohibition, accompanied the body. He (Colonel Sykes) received from Mr. Gray's relatives in Aberdeen a letter acquainting him with the grievous loss which the family had sustained, and putting forward
  520
  a claim for redress and recompense. That letter he immediately forwarded to the Foreign Office, and Earl Russell, with a promptitude which did him honour, sent an answer the next day, stating that if the depositions of the master and men of the Saxon were correct, wilful murder had been committed, and that the murderer ought to be brought to trial forthwith. The noble Lord added that the matter had already received the notice of the Government, that the Law Officers of the Crown had been consulted, and that a despatch, based on their opinion, had been sent to Mr. Seward. Mr. Gray's relatives had expressed their gratitude to Earl Russell for his prompt attention to the case; and he was satisfied that the Government would do all they could, not only to bring the murderer to trial, and, if convicted, to secure his execution, but also to obtain recompense for the destitute and suffering family of the unfortunate man.
  SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONEobserved, that Angra Pequina, the island which the Saxon had visited, was one of several spots along the South Coast of Africa, where various commodities, such as oil, wool, &c, were stored up, while waiting to be conveyed to the Cape. Having arrived in that position, the master proceeded to clean and paint his ship, in which operation he was occupied eleven days. The fact showed that he had no reason for concealment; as if any of his cargo had been contraband of war, the captain would have been only too anxious to get away as soon as possible. Part of his crew were on shore when the Vanderbilt came in sight. A large party of armed men were sent on board, although the crew of the Saxon had no arms whatever, and might have been kept under control by two or three men with cutlasses. The Americans were armed with cutlasses and revolvers, and were described as a most savage set of men. In the depositions taken at the Cape, Lieutenant Donoghan was stated to be in a very excited state, which probably meant that he was drunk. The master of the Saxon was sent below, and when the chief mate was going on to the raised quarter-deck to speak to the lieutenant, the latter pushed him back by the shoulder. By an instinctive movement the mate endeavoured to right himself, and as he turned round Lieutenant Donoghan shot him through the neck dead. Captain Baldwin and the other two lieutenants of the Vanderbilt expressed their regret, and

  521
  it appeared that the officer who committed the murder expressed his regret also. The remark made by some of the Vanderbilt men was that Lieutenant Donoghan was a good shot with the revolver, but was somewhat hasty. What was the subsequent conduct of Captain Baldwin? He would not only not permit the crew of the Saxon to bury their own comrade, but it did not appear that he ever placed Lieutenant Donoghan under arrest. That fact alone showed that Captain Baldwin, instead of being a bland officer of the Chesterfield school, as he had been represented by the Attorney General, was neither more nor less than an accomplice. It appeared, moreover, that he did not hesitate to violate the usages of civilized warfare by sending the crew of the Saxon to an island where they had to undergo great hardships before they were able to procure food and shelter. Under these circumstances, it could not be said that Her Majesty's Government had made proper representations to the Federal authorities. In fact, their conduct—and in this he believed he was expressing the general feeling both in that House and out of doors—was the conduct of a bully to the weak and of a coward to the strong. He would remind them, however, that in former times the captain of a British merchantman had appeared at the bar of that House with his ears in his hands, he having been denuded of them by pirates on the Spanish Main; but although they were repudiated by the Spanish Government, the atrocities committed led to a war in which the honour of England was fully vindicated.
  MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCKsaid, he would not have ventured to intrude any observations of his own upon the attention of the House had he not felt, especially after the remarks of the Attorney General, that a little more discussion was required. He would remind hon. Members that last year, when the case of the Springbok was brought forward, the Government did everything in their power to stifle debate. The noble Lord at the head of the Foreign Office expressed his indignation that the point should have been raised at all; the hon. and learned Attorney General expressed his belief that the mention of the subject was premature; and the hon. Member for the City of London lent the weight of his commercial experience in recommending delay, and expressing his confidence in the noble Lord at the head of the Government. A year had passed away, and it was impossible to say that the facts were
  522
  better known, or that greater confidence was felt in the administration of the law in the American courts. He had taken the trouble to ascertain the circumstances under which the Springbok had been seized, and could give his hon. and learned Friend a little information on the point; for although he had cited the printed copy of the judgment, his perusal of that judgment must have been very cursory. The Springbok was chartered by a merchant in London in the usual way through a broker, to carry a cargo of lawful merchandise from Liverpool to Nassau, at the rate of 25 s. per ton. As the cargo consisted of lawful merchandise the owner was compelled to carry it. His position, consequently, was a very hard one, for while under a legal liability to carry the cargo, both ship and merchandise were seized by the Americans. The case involved two questions—first, the seizure of the ship, and next the seizure of the cargo. Not a single remark had been made by the Attorney General upon the condemnation of the ship. His hon. and learned Friend had correctly cited an extract from the judgment with regard to the seizure of the cargo, and had also referred to Lord Stowell's decision in the case of the Thomyris, which was, however, distinguishable from the present case; but he quite forgot, that, in another place, the case of the Springbok had been discussed during the last Session, and that the Foreign Secretary had stated that, a vessel going to Nassau, intending afterwards to make another voyage, could not legally be captured on her way thither; and that statement was immediately confirmed by a great legal authority, Lord Cranworth.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, he quite concurred in that opinion.
  MR. CAVENDISH BENTINCK: Lord Cranworth, after citing a leading decision of Lord Stowell, declared that a neutral vessel carrying contraband of war could not legally be stopped on her way to a neutral port, whatever might be her subsequent destination. But in spite of that authority, his hon. and learned Friend had quoted with approbation the decision of Judge Betts, who said—
  "I am entirely satisfied, from all the evidence in the case, that the cargo of the Springbok wan intended to be delivered in the enemy's country, by transhipment at Nassau."
  Thus it appeared that Judge Betts himself —that great authority—admitted that the cargo and ship were bound for a neutral

  523
  port, and that that neutral port was the bonâ fide destination of the ship. But ill at was not all. His hon. and learned Friend would never contend that contraband of war would condemn a ship if the owner was innocent. But Judge Betts further said—
  "The court is of opinion that, under all the circumstances disclosed, the vessel must be held to have been carrying on the unlawful enterprise of transporting contraband articles on their way to the enemy's country, and that her owners are responsible for the unlawful transportation of the contraband articles and for the acts of the master to such an extent as to justify the condemnation of the vessel."
  According to that doctrine, for which no valid reasons were given, the Federal cruisers might seize vessels going from Liverpool to Scotland, from Holyhead to Dublin, or elsewhere. As an additional reason for the confiscation of the ship and cargo Judge Betts said that—
  "The failure of the master of the ship to demand and carry with him full and clear invoices, containing full particulars of his cargo, was a deliberate one, because he says (Int. 31) that the invoices were to be sent to Nassau by mail steamer, thus showing that he knew of the existence of invoices of the cargo; and that he declares his ignorance of the contents of the cargo, or that there were any goods contraband of war on board—an ignorance which the Court cannot, under the circumstances, regard as a real ignorance, and which, if it were a real ignorance, is inexcusable on the part of a master in time of war. The conclusion is irresistible, that the master was carrying this cargo, composed, in part, of contraband articles, under false papers."
  Now he (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck) was informed, that in sailing vessels it was unusual to send invoices, and that they were invariably sent by post and were not placed in the hands of the captain. The hon. and learned Gentlemen had dwelt upon the right of appeal, but that right was but cold comfort; for although the vessel was captured in February, 1862, there was no chance of the appeal being heard by the Supreme court before December, 1864. Thus the American Government could stop our commerce by seizing our ships and hanging up the litigation in each case for a period of eighteen months, or more Moreover, Federal Judges were not like English Judges; although many of them were high-minded and learned men, yet for the most part they went out with the Government. These inferior Judges might have a bias, therefore, to the prejudice of British subjects, and with regard to their decisions Her Majesty's Government might make some further represen-
  524
  tations. He felt compelled to make these observations, because unless some pressure were put upon the noble Lord the Prime Minister, no justice would be done to British subjects. The noble Lord was a brave man against a feeble adversary. If he had to face a Greek or a Neapolitan his courage was enormous—he would execute severe reprisals against Brazil; he would levy war upon the defenceless Chinese or Japanese; but the moment he was placed in front of an antagonist whose physical or moral strength was in the least degree formidable, he shrank from the contest, and left the injured British subject to obtain his remedy as best he could. Any Gentleman who had ever experienced the misfortune to urge in that House the claims of a British subject, could testify to the truth of these remarks. The noble Lord was sometimes afraid even of an Italian. But when he had to meet "the great Abraham," "he bent low, and in a bondman's key, with bated breath and whispering humbleness," said, "Fair Sir, you spit on me on Wednesday last; you spurned me such a day, and for these courtesies I now obey your bidding." He (Mr. Cavendish Bentinck) trusted the House and the country would, call on the noble Lord to vindicate those rights and privileges to which Englishmen were entitled.
  MR. CRAWFORDsaid, he did not propose to enter into the general question. He merely wished to correct an error into which the hon. and gallant Member for Portsmouth had fallen. The hon. and gallant Gentleman said he should have expected that the man Donoghan, who shot Gray, the mate of the Saxon, would have been placed under arrest. But if he had read the depositions carefully he would have found this passage in the evidence of one of the witnesses:—"I asked the officer on board where Donoghan was, and was told that he was under arrest." That was a sufficient answer to the hon. and gallant Gentleman's observation, and showed that assertions of that kind made in that House ought to be received with great caution; because when it could he shown that one inaccurate statement had been made, accompanied by a very strong expression of feeling, some distrust might fairly be entertained as to the correctness of other statements thus put forward. The hon. Gentleman who spoke last had raised a question as to whether the invoices were sent on with the vessels, and stated that

  525
  he was informed they generally were not. He might on that point tell the hon. Gentleman that his own experience was entirely the reverse of that, and that the invoices usually were sent on with the vessels. He wished next to notice an observation from the noble Lord the Member for Stamford. The noble Lord said he was sure that the mercantile community would not be satisfied with the ingenious statement of the learned Attorney General. Now, he did not know what authority the noble Lord had to speak for the mercantile community, but he would tell the noble Lord that he was not the person to whom the mercantile community would give their confidence or ask to represent their feelings. The manner in which he dealt with these questions in that House was not such as entitled him to such confidence. When allusion was made to the opinion of the mercantile community, it was necessary to ask whether those who professed to express that opinion were in favour of a forcible intervention on the American continent. Those of the mercantile community who favoured the contraband trade, and who were opposed to the Federal Government exercising the powers which justly belonged to it, would naturally be extremely dissatisfied with the statement of the learned Attorney General. On the other hand, those who were adverse to the contraband trade, and who would be sorry to see the British Government interfere in any way with the American contest, were perfectly satisfied with the mode in which these exceedingly intricate, difficult, and embarrassing questions were dealt with by Her Majesty's Government. They did not expect their Government to take up every case with hot haste and to demand instant satisfaction, or threaten reprisals, without any examination of its merits. They saw in the American Government a Government entitled to respect. The United States were governed by laws similar in many respects to our own; they were governed by men of education, by men as well qualified to give expression to right feelings and sound opinions as any others; and, therefore, when he heard it stated that our Government were not regarding their duty because they did not force on matters to an immediate, hasty decision; because they did not put an undue pressure upon the American Government, he said he could not concur in that opinion; and in that he believed he correctly expressed the feelings of the mercantile community, if not
  526
  of the country, at least of the City of London.
  LORD JOHN MANNERSsaid, that, coupling the observations which had just fallen from the hon. Gentleman who sat immediately behind Her Majesty's Government with those made by the learned Attorney General, the House of Commons on that occasion seemed to him to be assisting at the funeral rites and final internment of that celebrated historical personage the "Civis Romanus." When he recollected how the noble Lord had once promised that an Englishman, wherever he went, should be as safe as the ancient Roman, who cried, "Civis Romanus sum," he owned that he had listened with pain to the statement of the learned Attorney General, in which he told them that the American captain had done all that could have been expected of him, and had expressed regret at the barbarous murder, by one of his officers, of an inoffensive Englishman. The hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Crawford), who claimed—he knew not how rightly—to represent that great body the English mercantile community, endorsed every word and every action on the part of the English Government, and looked with undiminished confidence upon the conduct of the Federal Government of America. The hon. Gentleman was not very polite in the observations he addressed to his noble Friend the Member for Stamford (Lord Robert Cecil), whose opinions, expressed so eloquently that night, he was inclined to think would make far more way in the mind of the English people than those just uttered by the hon. Gentleman. The hon. Member had told his noble Friend that he had no claim to and could not be supposed to enjoy the confidence of the English mercantile community. Might he express the hope that the hon. Gentleman, sitting as he did immediately behind the Government, and on all occasions, as far as he knew, sympathising with them and voting in their favour, did not represent the opinions or the sentiments of the English mercantile community? The learned Attorney General had given reasons why the papers moved for by his hon. Friend (Mr. Seymour FitzGerald) should not be produced. The hon. Gentleman who spoke last was quite wrong if he supposed that his hon. Friend had made any defence of the merchants who might be engaged in contraband proceedings; all his hon. Friend had asked for was the production of papers which would show to the House and the

  527
  country how Her Majesty's Government had discharged one of the most important of the functions which devolved upon them at that moment. The learned Attorney General had said, that in his opinion it would be inconvenient for the public service—nay, in one instance, prejudicial to the English claimants themselves, if these papers were produced. But with respect to the first case mentioned by his hon. Friend—namely, that of the Margaret and Jessie, he understood from the Attorney General that all the papers were complete but the final answer of the American Government. In many other instances of a similar kind, however, the papers were given to them in detail. They had had, he forgot how many, papers presented on the subject of the Alabama; and he thought it would be satisfactory if—in the case of the Margaret and Jessie, at all events—the papers which were complete should be submitted to the House without delay. His noble Friend (Lord Robert Cecil,) had pointed out the bad impression being created in the public mind at home from the apparent—he was quite prepared to believe it was not real—want of earnestness on the part of Her Majesty's Government in pressing that grievous case on the attention of the American Government. But, in addition to the feeling which was gradually increasing in England, they ought not to shut out from their consideration the feeling which must prevail in our colonial dependencies which had been the scenes of these outrages. Taking the case of the Margaret and Jessie, it was known that as far back as June last the most pressing representations were addressed to Her Majesty's Government by the Governor of the Bahamas on that subject. What was the first notice taken by the Government of that most serious case? In answer to a question put in the other House by a noble Lord who supported the policy of the Government, Earl Russell said that the Governor of the Bahamas "had not mentioned the circumstances of the case from his own knowledge; he only said that there was a report to that effect." Why at the time that Earl Russell made that statement he was informed—and from what they had heard from the Attorney General it was evident—that the British Government were in possession of no less than thirteen duly-signed declarations narrating the whole facts of the case. And, more than that, he was prepared to state that at the moment when
  528
  Earl Russell gave that answer Her Majesty's Government were in possession not only of all those declarations, but also of the fragments of a shell which had been fired on the Island of Eleuthera. There was a feeling growing up in the Colonies that the English Government were not as energetic as they ought to be in repelling these outrages; and English naval officers, from some reason or other, did not appear to those who witnessed their operations to be animated by that earnest spirit in checking such acts which their colonial fellow-subjects expected would be manifested in accordance with the terms of the Queen's proclamation. He should like to know whether any instructions subsequent to the issue of the Queen's proclamation had been sent to the Admiral or senior officer on the station of the Bahamas, that might afford inducement to officers not to prevent Federal men-of war anchoring there, as it was understood they were prohibited from doing under the Queen's proclamation. No one could be surprised that an uneasy feeling had grown up in our colonial dependencies, and he entirely agreed in all that had fallen from his noble Friend the Member for Stamford (Lord Robert Cecil), in his vigorous, manly, and energetic speech, with regard to the tone in which the learned Attorney General had dealt with the subject.
  MR. BENTINCKsaid, he quite agreed with the hon. Member for London (Mr. Crawford) that it was the duty of the Government to deal with the affairs of the kind under consideration with the greatest possible circumspection and deliberation: but he could not agree in the eulogy that the hon. Member had passed on the general conduct of the Federal Government, nor did he believe that eulogy would be endorsed by the opinion of the country. He would go further, and say, that judging from what they had seen on various occasions of the conduct and disposition of that Government, they had no right to put implicit faith that cases such as they were then discussing would be dealt with by that Government in the spirit with which they ought to be. It was, therefore, the more incumbent on that House to express strongly the opinions they entertained on the subject. He agreed with his noble Friend the Member for Stamford, that a strong impression was rapidly growing in the country, that the national honour was not always maintained, and that they were too much in the habit of truckling to the

  529
  strong and bullying the weak. He had listened with great pleasure to the hon. Member for Horsham and the noble Lord the Member for Stamford, because from what they had said he had good reason to hope that they would not be found siding with an opinion which had been expressed on both sides of the House, that our armaments should be still further reduced, and he hoped to have their support at least in maintaining at their fullest efficiency the armaments of this country. He could not agree with the hon. and gallant Member for Portsmouth in thinking that the blame attaching—he would not say to the injured honour of this country, but he might say—to the sullied honour of the country, entirely rested with the present or any former Government. He thought that a portion of that blame ought to be shared by the House of Commons. It was quite clear that the honour of the country could not be maintained by words. It had been said during the Session, and he thought with great truth, that the country had been brought into discredit by uttering threats which she was not in a position to carry out. How did that opinion hear on the subject they were then discussing? Assuming that the honour of the country had been assailed by the Federal or any Government in Europe, he would ask the House of Commons how they proposed to meet the insult? Were they to meet it by a reduction of armaments? Were they, by a reduction of the naval and military forces, to place the country in a position in which she would be unable to maintain her honour both by sea and land? They had already learned from the noble Lord at the head of the Government, that a reduction of some sort was about to be made in our military armaments; and, as far as could be gathered from public rumour, it was not intended to propose any increase in the naval armaments. He wished to know whether, under those circumstances, the House of Commons would not be much to blame if the honour of the country were not properly maintained. He would be told that an increase in the estimates could not originate in that House; it must be proposed by the Government. But he would appeal to any Member of that House whether of late years estimates had not been framed much more with a view to popularity than to practical utility, having regard to expediency rather than to the demands of the country. The Government would propose an increase in the
  530
  Army and Navy Estimates if they were sure of the cordial support of the majority of the House of Commons. So long as reduced estimates were popular in that House so long would the Government continue to frame the estimates for popularity and not for utility. It should be remembered that it was only by strong armaments that the honour of this country could be maintained. Let, then, his hon. Friends who agreed with him in this opinion exert themselves to maintain strong armaments, which were the best means of upholding the honour of the country. Let them do this, or have the discretion to hold their tongue.
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: I hope after the discussion which has taken place, the hon. Member for Horsham will not press for these papers. The greater part of the papers for which he has moved relate to questions of law still pending, or questions under discussion between the two Governments; and, as was stated by my hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General, injury even to the parties concerned would arise in some cases from the premature production of the papers moved for. We have heard this evening the cuckoo cry frequently urged in this House by those who like general assertions better than particular proof, that Her Majesty's Government are in the habit of bullying the weak and truckling to the strong. I entirely deny that assertion. The Government are anxious on all occasions to assert the lights and vindicate the honour of the country, whatever be the method we adopt to accomplish these objects. I think it right, however, to state with regard to the Government of the United States—what has indeed been already stated by my hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General—that we have no reason to mistrust the equity and independence of the tribunals of the United States which have to try questions such as those now under discussion; and it is but due to the Government of the United States to say, that they have invariably received our representations in a spirit of respect, equity, and justice. And in proof of this—to show that, when we had a strong case of remonstrance, justice has been done to us by the United States, I need only refer to the case of the Trent, in which the Government of the United States very handsomely and properly did justice to the demands we made, and the rights they did not deny. Therefore, I think it is prejudicial to the good under-

  531
  standing between the two Governments, which are on good terms, that we should here accuse a foreign Government of that of which it is not guilty, and express mistrust of their equity and fairness when nothing has occurred to justify us in making these imputations. I think it only right, in regard to the tribunals and Government of the United States, to declare that such accusations are not just, and that nothing has occurred to warrant them.
  LORD LOVAINEsaid, he wished to point out to the noble Lord that his reference to the case of the Trent was not a very happy one. The manner in which the Federal Government had acted did not give one a very high opinion of their equity or courtesy. In giving up those persons whom they had illegally seized, they said the men were not worth quarrelling about, and they gave them up accordingly.
  SIR JOHN WALSHsaid, he thought the House was indebted to the hon. Member for Horsham for having brought so important a subject under its notice. But, at the same time, his hon. Friend was too good a Parliamentary tactician to think of pressing his Motion to a division after the speech of the noble Lord, and the skilful and adroit statement of the Attorney General, that the production of the papers would be prejudicial not only to the Government but to the individuals specially concerned. He wished, however, to call the attention of the Government and of the House to the fact that, in relation to the Saxon, there were two totally different questions involved. As he understood the case, that vessel had been seized under extraordinary and suspicious circumstances, and had been taken from the vicinity of the Cape of Good Hope to New York for adjudication as a lawful prize. The Attorney General had said that the House ought not to discuss that part of the case, as it might prejudice the Saxon and her owners, and that it was not proper to anticipate legal decisions by relying upon ex parte information. That might be conceded, but the seizure of the vessel and the murder of the mate were two different questions. If the Saxon had broken the blockade, or committed any other marine delinquency, those were merely civil questions to be tried in the civil courts, but it was different with respect to the murder. Let them wait, if it was thought most proper to do so, until the cautious procrastinating proceedings in the Prize Courts had exhausted themselves, so far as the question of maritime
  532
  rights was concerned; but let them not unnecessarily wait one day or one hour before claiming full satisfaction for the murder of a British subject. He understood that that murder was committed in the middle of the month of October last, and, therefore, there had been ample time for all the information to arrive in this country, and for proper representations to have been made to the American Government, and for that Government to have taken some steps in the matter. The information which he wished to elicit from the Government was, not only whether they had made any strong representation to the United States' Government, but also whether they had received any official information that the American Government had taken any steps in consequence. There could be no valid excuse for delay when the murder of a British subject was alleged, and it was the duty of the British Government to demand and of the American Government to institute the promptest measures to investigate the charge.
  THE SOLICITOR GENERALsaid, he entirely agreed with the hon. Baronet that the capture or condemnation of the vessel was a totally different question from that of the murder of the mate. The one was a question to be dealt with by the Prize Courts, but the other was a criminal offence. It was an offence, too—if the information they had received were true—of great enormity. True it was that the officer said it was an accident, but that was an explanation which it was difficult to reconcile with the statements that were made by others. In order to set the hon. Baronet right upon the question, he could assure him that there had been no delay on the part of the Government in making the necessary representation. He could not at the moment give the precise date of the supposed murder, but the first information of it which was received by the Attorney General and himself was about three weeks since. They had lost no time in advising the Government that a demand should be made upon the Government of the United States that the offender should be put upon his trial. There had not yet been time to receive an answer to that demand, but it was expected by the next mail. He trusted that the hon. Baronet and the House would see that no time had been lost, and that the Government had made the only representation to the United States Government which they could make. He confessed he was surprised to hear the

  533
  noble Lord the Member for Stamford (Lord Robert Cecil) say that this country was eternally disgraced and humiliated because the Government had merely required that a supposed murderer should be brought to trial. He had waited to hear what it was the noble Lord would suggest ought to have been done to save the honour of the country. If the Government had received the benefit of the advice of the noble Lord, it was difficult to understand what stronger course he would have recommended than that which had been pursued, unless, indeed, a demand that the accused should be hanged without a trial. Or perhaps the noble Lord who referred to Kagosima would recommend an immediate bombardment of New York. Such would appear to be the character of the counsels which the noble Lord would offer to a Government unfortunate enough to have him for an adviser.
  MR. MALINSsaid, he much rejoiced to hear the statement of the Solicitor General, as it relieved the House from the doubt which had been created by the speech of the Attorney General. There was so marked a distinction between a question of prize capture for contraband of war and the murder of a British subject, that the House felt disappointed at the want of decision in the expressions of the Attorney General upon that subject. They were now told that a pointed demand for the trial of the accused officer had been made, but the Attorney General left it to be assumed that the Government had been satisfied with expressions of regret.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERALsaid, he would beg leave to explain. He wished to remind the House that he distinctly stated the Government had demanded that the officer should be put upon his trial.
  MR. MALINSsaid, he had failed to catch any such decisive statement in the hon. and learned Gentleman's speech, but he was glad to find that such a demand had been made. When a murder of a British subject had been committed on board a British ship, the boarding of which seemed to be without excuse, if no prompt steps were taken by the Government, it would lend cogency to the imputation that our policy was to coerce the weak, but to Submit to the strong. It was, therefore, satisfactory to hear that a proper demand for redress had been made upon the United States' Government. With respect to the seizures of vessels for breach of blockade, he was not inclined to dis-
  534
  agree with the Attorney General, that it would be proper to await the decisions of the Prize Courts; and until we had reason to suspect them of injustice or unfairness, which was not the case at present, their decisions must be accepted.
  MR. SEYMOUR FITZGERALDsaid, he wished to say one word by way of explanation. The noble Lord seemed to think that he had moved for those papers with the view of casting blame upon the American Government. But he had expressly guarded himself against being actuated by that motive, and he had stated that his only object was to obtain information with respect to the course which had been pursued by the Government of Her Majesty. He would not, under the circumstances, proceed further with the matter. But he would reserve to himself the right to bring the case of the Saxon again before the House, in case he should find that steps had not been taken for its satisfactory settlement.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

  THEATRES (PRECAUTIONS AGAINST FIRE).—QUESTION.
  SIR WILLIAM FRASERrose to call attention to the insufficiency of means of egress from Theatres in case of fire or sudden alarm. Theatres were not the only public buildings in which greater precautions were required against the dangers to which the public were exposed from the difficulty of escape in case of fire; but Churches were under the control of the churchwardens, and other public buildings in the metropolis were subject to the licence of the magistrates. He, therefore, confined his question to theatres. Those structures had been placed under the authority of the Lord Chamberlain, by the 6 & 7 Vict. c. 68. Under the terms of the Act, the power of the Lord Chamberlain seemed to be hardly sufficient to provide for the public safety. One need not be an architect or surveyor to see the dangerous condition of some of the London theatres with regard to egress. All were not equally bad, but in several—though it would not be fair to mention them by name—there was no chance whatever for the great bulk of the audience if the "interior suddenly caught fire, or if there was an alarm of fire. It was said that there were other doors than those by which the public ordinarily entered. But the

  535
  public did not know where these doors were, and would rush to that by which they had been admitted; and then what chance would 400 persons have of escaping through a door which would only admit one at a time? It was easy to say that the public themselves created the danger by their want of presence of mind and by panic. These were plausible common-places, but they were not arguments which would stand. Once at least in every generation here a theatre was destroyed by fire. Last winter at Rome he saw one burned down in an incredibly short period of time, but fortunately, as at Covent Garden, the theatre was empty. He did not wish to say a word against the rights, privileges, and emoluments of actors. They were some of the most excellent citizens we possessed; and the wretched old prejudices—the offspring of envy and ignorance—which once existed against them had long since disappeared. He believed that if they searched the records of the Courts of Justice for the last 100 years, the name of an actor would not be found. He was not aware of any other profession of which that could be said. These matters had always been considered by Governments: Napoleon had signed the regulations of the Grand Opera at Paris amid the flames of Moscow; and the Moniteur of January 22, 1792, contained a theatrical notice, although it omitted as unimportant the fact that the King of Prance was beheaded the day before. It was estimated that as many as 1,500,000 persons now visited the London theatres in the course of the year, and the safety of their lives was surely well worth consideration by that House. He would, therefore, ask the Home Secretary, Whether he regarded the present state of the metropolitan theatres as satisfactory; whether he regarded the present state of the law affecting them as satisfactory; and whether he proposed any alteration in the law?
  SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, that the Question of the hon. Gentleman, as it stood upon the Paper, was "Whether the Lord Chamberlain would grant licences to theatres in which no adequate provision was made for escape in case of fire?" Now it was most desirable that improved means of egress in case of fire or alarm of fire should be provided in public buildings of every kind, including churches. Theatres were of course, more exposed to risk of fire than churches were; and the Act to which the hon. Baronet had refer-
  536
  red gave the Lord Chamberlain power to withhold the licence of any theatre in which he did not think the precautions taken for the safety of the public were sufficient. In 1853 the Lord Chamberlain required that every manager should furnish a certificate from an architect as to the safety of the structure and the means of egress. Two years afterwards that was not thought enough, and the Lord Chamberlain, before the annual renewal of the licence, required that an inspection of the whole building by one of his own officers accompanied by an architect or surveyor should take place, and that they should furnish a written report upon various matters connected with the theatre, and especially as to the means of egress, and the precautions taken against fire. Communications were made to the managers in every case in which the Lord Chamberlain inferred from the report thus supplied to him that sufficient precautions were not taken; and the effect of these communications and of the regulations enforced was, that a great improvement had taken place, and the safety of the public was much better provided for than it had been. At that moment, he believed, the means of egress from theatres were much more complete than those in any other public buildings to which people resorted in large numbers, and one important point was that the doors all opened outwards, or were swing doors, which would open either way. The Lord Chamberlain stated that a difficulty had arisen owing to the very narrow frontage possessed by many of the old theatres, which prevented adequate openings on each side which would facilitate the object desired. With regard to new theatres, however, a plan was now always submitted to and approved by him before he would grant a licence, and one of the chief requisites laid down in such cases was the provision of adequate means of egress. The Lord Chamberlain had also discontinued the granting of occasional licences for the performance of stage plays in buildings which, not having the regular stage appliances, exposed an audience to greater risk than the regular theatres. The House might rest assured that the attention of the Lord Chamberlain would continue to be directed to this important subject, and he hoped that ultimately there would be little cause of complaint respecting it.
  Subject dropped.

DESPATCH OF SEPTEMBER, 1863.

  QUESTION.
  MR. HENNESSYsaid, he rose to ask a Question respecting an important despatch which was sent during last autumn to Russia on the subject of Poland. On the first night of the Session the Under Secretary of State expressed a doubt whether he (Mr. Hennessy) was right in stating that a despatch was sent to Prince Gortschakoff last autumn, and was subsequently recalled and altered. Since then the correspondence relating to Poland had been published. It contained practically three despatches—the first from Earl Russell to Lord Napier, dated August 11, 1863; Prince Gortschakoff's reply to Baron Brunow, dated August 26; and the third from Earl Russell to Lord Napier, dated October 20. The despatch of the 20th of October was the one which he alleged was sent in the month of September, and which, after being signed by the Secretary of State and approved by the Queen and Cabinet, was recalled by telegram, in order that an important sentence might be struck out of it. In the first paragraph of the despatch of the 20th of October, reference was made to a prior despatch of Earl Russell on the 11th ultimo. But the despatch referred to was dated the 11th of August, and therefore he inferred that when the despatch had had the sentence struck out and had been redated, the alteration from the 11th ultimo which was correct when the despatch was dated in September, was not made, as it should have been, to the 11th of August. That showed that he was probably correct in his statement that the despatch of September was recalled and redated. He believed there was no doubt about it, and he was inclined to think that Her Majesty's Government would admit that his statement was correct as to what had happened to the despatch. On the 26th of September Earl Russell made an important declaration at Blairgowrie. The purport of that declaration was immediately conveyed to Prince Gortschakoff by telegraph, and Lord Napier subsequently informed Prince Gortschakoff that a despatch embodying the declaration was on its way to St. Petersburg, and was to be presented to the Russian Government. He (Mr. Hennessy) was informed that Prince Gortschakoff advised Lord Napier not to present that despatch. He believed that Prince Gortschakoff was able to strengthen that
  538
  advice by appealing to two other countries, and that Herr von Bismark and Count Rechberg both advised the withdrawal of the dispatch. However that might be, the attention of the Russian Government having been roused, a telegram was sent withdrawing it. In order that the House might understand the gravity of the transaction, he would read the declaration of Earl Russell at Blairgowrie, the substance of which was embodied in the despatch. Earl Russell said—
  "At the Treaty of Vienna it was thought fit, and circumstances of expediency perhaps justified what was done, to admit, as it were, into the Law of Nations the State of Poland as divided between the three Powers, and to give a kind of retrospective sanction, as it were, to the partition of Poland. The Powers of Europe became, to use a legal phrase, accessories after the fact. Austria and Prussia complied with the conditions of the treaty. Russia has not complied with them. It seems to me that it was an act of great imprudence on the part of Russia, when she had that great advantage—when she had the act of spoliation and partition condoned, as it were, by Europe—to reject the terms on which that sanction was given; to rest, as she now rests, on the title of the original partition, on the title of conquest; rejecting all those conditions by which at the Treaty of Vienna that title was, as it were, accepted by Europe. What may be the consequences of that act—what conduct the different Powers of Europe may follow—is not a question on which I can properly enter. I merely wish you to remark the fact, that these conditions, which are contained in the Treaty of Vienna, by which Russia obtained the Kingdom of Poland, have not been complied with; and that without the conditions of the tenure the title itself can hardly be upheld."
  That was a very important statement, and he asked the attention of the House to the fact that a statement somewhat similar was embodied in a Resolution, notice of which was submitted last Session by his hon. Friend opposite, the Member for Bradford. Furthermore, every one in that House, acting on behalf of Poland, as well as the honourable engagements of England, insisted upon such a declaration being made; and he would venture to remind the House, that on the last day of the Session the last words which he addressed to the noble Lord on the subject were similar to the words used by Earl Russell at Blairgowrie. He was perfectly aware that the noble Lord at the head of the Government differed from Lord Russell, and did not see the importance to the Poles of making that declaration. It was enough that the declaration had been made by Earl Russell, and that the Poles attached immense importance to it. He said that a despatch embodying

  539
  that declaration, signed by the Secretary of State, sanctioned by the Queen and Cabinet, and sent abroad, was recalled. It was written in the month of September. It was recalled and redated the 20th of October. The despatch, as altered, ended with this sentence—
  "Her Majesty's Government have, in the despatch of the 11th of August and preceding despatches, shown that in regard to this particular question the rights of Poland are contained in the same instrument which constitutes the Emperor of Russia King of Poland.
  "I am, &c.,
  "RUSSELL."
  It was a very abrupt ending. The last sentence stated the premise. It did not draw the conclusion. The conclusion was drawn by Earl Russell at Blairgowrie. The conclusion was that Russia having failed to fulfil the conditions of the Treaty of Vienna, England no longer recognized the legitimate rule of Russia in Poland. He wished to ask the noble Lord whether he would give the House the despatch of September in its complete form. He ventured to impress on the noble Lord that the House was bound to consider the policy of the Government as they declared it. It might be true that Prince Gortschakoff advised Lord Napier not to present the despatch, and that the Government withdrew it and struck out the passage. But the people of England wished to know what was the policy and what was the opinion of the Government, and would not be satisfied with the mutilated despatch from which the declaration of the Government was omitted. He would also particularly remind the noble Lord, that in the many petitions which had been laid on the table on the subject of Poland, the petitioners all asked the Government to make the identical declaration which Earl Russell made at Blairgowrie, and he was sure the noble Lord would acknowledge he was right in saying that those who represented the National Government in Poland, and who had from time to time made unofficial communications to the British Government, had over and over again asked for such a declaration. The Poles had never asked for armed aid from England. The representatives of the National Government had over and over again declared that they did not want armed assistance. All they had asked was that England should wash her hands of what was now going on, by making such a declaration. He hoped the noble Lord would give a full and frank explanation on the subject, It was one of
  540
  great importance to the Poles. It was of pressing and immediate interest to the people of England, and he firmly believed that it was the most important step which had been taken in relation to Poland by any British Cabinet since 1815.
  VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: The hon. Gentleman wishes to know, whether a certain despatch which had been prepared and sent to one of our Ministers abroad was altered by the direction of the Secretary of State before it was delivered to the foreign Government for whom it was intended? There have been to my knowledge many such instances. There have been many cases where, upon reconsideration, it has been thought advisable to make some change in a despatch sent to one of our Ministers abroad, and intended for communication to a foreign Government. But I am sure the hon. Gentleman will see it would be exceedingly improper to lay before Parliament that which was not the deliberate act of the British Government. He might as well ask for despatches in the form before they were finally settled by the Secretary of State. That to which the House is entitled is the actual communication made to the Foreign Government, and I must decline to enter into any explanation as to what changes may have been made at any period of time in a despatch intended for a Foreign Government. With regard to the statement of my noble Friend at Blairgowrie, and the applications which the hon. Gentleman says have been made by the Poles, with all deference it does not seem to me that my noble Friend's declaration tallies exactly with what the Poles wish. What the Poles ask for, and what the hon. Member has often asked for, is that we should state to the Russian Government that we consider the stipulations of the Treaty of Vienna no longer binding on them with regard to Poland—that is, that we should say we do not hold by the stipulations of the Treaty of Vienna. Such a statement would release Russia from all the obligations which the Treaty of Vienna imposed on her with regard to the treatment of the Poles. It is quite true that Polish persons with whom I have communicated have always urged that as a most important thing in their interests. It is often said that people are the best judges of their own interests. But here I do not think the Poles are the best judges of their own interests. It would be an important but a fatal communication with regard to the rights on which the Poles

  541
  stand, because it would be tantamount to saying to the Russian Government, "You no longer hold Poland by a treaty which stipulates that you should do certain things; you hold Poland by the right of conquest;" and it would place the Poles at the mercy of Russia, and beyond tire interference of any one as to the manner in which Russia should treat them. It would be placing the Poles in the same position as that in which they stood after the re volt of 1832. When we remonstrated with the Russian Government with respect to their treatment of Poland after the rebellion, they said—
  "Do not talk to us about the Treaty of Vienna; it is at an end. We have reconquered Poland, and you have no right to dictate to us how we should treat our conquered subjects."
  We, however, always denied the justice of that position. I have always held that a great step in advance with regard to the treatment of Poland had been made when, last year, the Russian Government were obliged to acknowledge that the Powers of Europe who signed it had a right to make representations to them founded on the Treaty of Vienna. I have, therefore, felt that to comply with the wish of the Poles, that we should release the Russian Government from all the arrangements and stipulations in their favour made by that treaty, would, so far from being advantageous to them, be to deliver them bound hand and foot to the mercy of those from whom they claim that we should endeavour to protect them.
  MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he hoped the noble Lord would state, or, if he were prevented by the rules of the House from again speaking, that he would instruct some Member of the Government to state, why it was that the despatch to which his hon. Friend the Member for the King's County referred had been recalled? For his own part, speaking with some knowledge of the feelings of the leading men among the Poles, he could say that there was nothing which had been done within the last year by our Government—scarcely, indeed, anything which had been done by it at all—by which they were more bitterly disappointed than they were at finding the speech of Earl Russell, which they had read with the greatest joy, and from which they derived the greatest consolation, was not justified by events. They did not ask us for armed assistance; still less did they ask us to make diplomatic representations on the ground of the Treaty of Vienna.; such re-
  542
  presentations they regarded as useless. But they said to us, "Now you have an opportunity, by simply acknowledging that you were parties to that treaty, that its conditions have been broken, and that you therefore withdraw your sanction from it, of putting us in our true position before Europe." And the reason why the Poles used that language was, that while they did not ask us to go to war on their behalf, yet they felt it to be of the utmost importance to them that, if a great war broke out in Europe, they should stand in the situation of having the status quo ante bellum altered by such a declaration as that which he had mentioned on the part of one of the leading European Powers. They would then, he maintained, stand in a different situation from that in which they were at present placed. The House had, under these circumstances, he thought, a right to know from the Government what it was that occasioned that sudden change in their policy to which his hon. Friend had drawn attention. Was it occasioned by the fact that the noble Viscount did not agree with Earl Russell when the despatch was sent? That he could hardly suppose; but if the despatch did not leave without his full concurrence then he had a right to ask, what were the circumstances which caused the noble Lord, and doubtless Earl Russell also, so suddenly to change their opinions? It was impossible, he contended, to know the position in which England stood in relation to Poland, unless the Government explained those two points, and he trusted therefore that that explanation would be given.
  MR, GRANT DUFFsaid, he rose to express a hope that the hon. Member for the King's County (Mr. Hennessy), who appeared to represent in that House, to a certain extent, the views of the National Government of Poland, would soon furnish the House with an opportunity of pronouncing an opinion on the Polish question. He knew not whether the Poles had or had not a right to hold Earl Russell to the declaration which he made at Blairgowrie; but they had, he thought, a right to know whether England did or did not mean to help them. For his own part, he took quite a different view from that which he understood the hon. Gentleman entertained of the state and prospects of the insurrection in Poland. The hon. Gentleman, if he was correctly informed, believed that the Poles were never stronger than at present; whereas the result of his own ob-

  543
  servation in Russia and Poland lately led him to the conclusion—and he was much mistaken if he should not be able to prove to the House that that conclusion was a sound one—that the insurrection was nearly worn out, and that every additional day it was prolonged gave Russia an opportunity of crushing still more a country which was sufficiently crushed already. It remained to be seen whether his view or that of the hon. Gentleman was the right one; whether it was desirable that we should go on fostering the insurrection by holding out unfounded hopes, or frankly say that we could do no more.
  Main Question put, and agreed to.

  Supply considered in Committee.
  House resumed.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again on Monday next.

  COUNTY COURTS (IRELAND) BILL.
  Bill to amend the procedure of the County Courts in Ireland.
  Bill presented, and read 1°. [Bill 12.]

  TRESPASS (IRELAND) BILL.
  Bill to amend the Law in certain cases relating to Trespasses in pursuit of Game.
  Bill presented, and read 1°. [Bill 13.]

  BANK ACTS (SCOTLAND) BILL.
  Resolution reported,
  "That it is expedient to make provision for replacing the lapsed issue of Bank Notes in Scotland upon payment from time to time of a certain charge in respect thereof."
  Resolution agreed to.
  Bill ordered to be brought by Mr. CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER and Mr. PEEL.
  Bill presented, and read 1°. [Bill 16.]

  VESTRY CESS ABOLITION (IRELAND) BILL.
  Bill for the Abolition of Vestry Cess in Ireland, and for other purposes relating thereto, ordered to be brought in by Sir ROBERT PEEL and Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL for IRELAND.
  Bill presented, and read 1°. [Bill 15.]

  TESTS ABOLITION (OXFOED) BILL.
  Tests Abolition (Oxford) considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Resolved, "That the Chairman be directed to move the House, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for the abolition of certain Tests in connection with Academical Degrees in the University of Oxford."
  Resolution reported.
  Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. DODSON, Mr. GRANT DUFF, and Mr. GOSCHEN.
  Bill presented, and read 1°. [Bill 18.]

  APPEAL IN CRIMINAL CASES ACT AMENDMENT BILL.
  Bill to amend an Act of the Session of the eleventh and twelfth years of Her Majesty, chapter seventy-eight, to provide a further Appeal in Criminal Cases, and for the further amendment of the administration of the Criminal Law.
  Bill presented, and read 1°. [Bill 14.]

  ELECTIONS PETITIONS BILL.
  Bill to amend the Law relating to Elections Petitions.
  Bill presented, and read 1°. [Bill 17.]
  House adjourned at Eight o'clock to Monday next.