Commons Sitting of 23 February 1866

MINUTES.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee—Marriage Portion of Princess Helena.
PUBLIC BILLS—Resolutions in Committee reported—Princess Helena and Prince Alfred; Monument to Viscount Palmerston.
Cattle Diseases (Ireland); Hop Trade; Merchant Shipping Act (1854) Amendment.
Ordered—Princess Helena*; Prince Alfred*; Cattle Diseases (Ireland)*; Public Companies*; Hop Trade*; Rochdale Vicarage*; Merchant Shipping Act (1854) Amendment.*
First Reading—Public Companies * [35]; Hop Trade * [36]; Cattle Diseases (Ireland)* [37]; Rochdale Vicarage* [38]; Turnpike Roads * [39].
Second Reading—Public Offices (Site)* [10].
Referred to Select Committee—Public Offices(Site)*
Considered as amended—Cattle Plague [32].
Third Reading—Cattle Plague [34]; Telegraph Act Amendment*[23] [Lords] and passed.

PUBLIC SCHOOLS.—QUESTION.
MR. GRANT DUFFasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether it is intended to introduce during the course of the present Session any measure with reference to the Public Schools?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, in reply, that he was not able to state positively that a measure relating to Public Schools would be introduced this Session.; but, if the state of public business would permit, it was the intention of his noble Friend, Lord Clarendon, to bring in a Bill in the other House.

UNITED STATES AND CUBA.

  QUESTION.
  MR. BAXTERasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, If any communications have taken place between Her Majesty's Government and the Government of the United States regarding the propriety of sending a joint Squadron to the Coast of Cuba, for the purpose of preventing the importation of Slaves into that Island?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Sir, I must answer the Question of my hon. Friend in the negative. There have been no communications between Her Majesty's Government and the Government of the United States with respect to sending any squadron to the coast of Cuba. There were communications some time ago—I think in the year 1864—between the two Governments with respect to the expediency of sending a small American squadron to the West African coast. With regard to the desirability of attaining the object in view, both parties were entirely at one; but the desire of the Government of the United States was that the vessels of the United States appointed to that duty should be released from the restrictions placed upon the cruisers of the United States in British ports generally under the Neutrality Proclamation. The opinion of Her Majesty's Government was that it was perfectly fair that they should be released, but that all vessels so released should be employed exclusively in operations for the
  960
  suppression of the slave trade. To that condition the United States Government, on its part very naturally, did not feel itself able to accede. On the other hand, Her Majesty's Government, quite as naturally, felt that if they were to exempt ships from the operation of the Neutrality Proclamation on any other ground, and allow it to be made the means of rendering British ports available for warlike operations, they would be departing from its spirit. With the best intentions on both sides, it was found impossible to agree on any practicable measure.

BRIGANDAGE IN GREECE.

  QUESTION.
  LORD AUGUSTUS HERVEYasked the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he is aware that the Demarch of Astako reported to the superior authorities that the three English travellers who were seized by brigands near Dragomestre, on the 8th of December, 1865, had been previously warned by him of their danger; whether he is aware that that report was completely untrue; and, if so, whether the Foreign Office has urged, or intends to urge, upon the Greek Government the dismissal of that functionary?
  MR. LAYARDsaid, that so far from the authorities stating that they had assured the three English gentlemen that there was no danger, they rather complained of those gentlemen going into a part of the country infested by brigands. He held in his hand a report from the Demarch of Astako to his Government, in which the fact was stated. Under these circumstances, Her Majesty's Government did not think it necessary to call upon the Greek Government to take any steps with regard to him. Mr. Erskine had directed inquiries to be made into the facts of the case. It would be very advisable if travellers in Greece—and there appeared to be many—would put themselves in communication with the authorities before proceeding through districts remote from towns, as it was well known that brigandage was rife at the present moment in that country.

DISEASE AMONG SWINE.

  QUESTION.
  SIR JOHN WALSHasked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether the attention of Her Majesty's Government has been drawn to the appearance of a new disease affecting swine in parts of the Con-

  961
  tinent of Europe, and not only destroying the animal, but rendering the flesh poisonous and dangerous to human life; and whether they have instituted any inquiries by competent medical and scientific authorities, with a view to ascertain the nature, extent, and progress of the disease? He wished to explain, in putting the Question, that the disease had appeared in France and Germany, and that eggs were deposited by insects in the hide of the animal, which died soon afterwards, or, if slaughtered, could not be eaten with safety.
  MR. H. A. BRUCEsaid, in reply, that in 1862 Professor Gamgee was directed to re-port upon the subject of diseases in meat, and among the diseases embraced in the inquiry was the one referred to. A German physician of eminence, who had paid special attention to the subject, was directed to make a Report, and it was published in the last volume of the Reports of the Medical Officer of the Privy Council. The Report was most exhaustive, supplied a number of illustrations, and gave every possible information upon this and other parasitic diseases affecting animals that were killed for human food.

WAGES OF LETTER CARRIERS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. FAWCETTasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether he thinks the Postmaster General came to a just and wise decision in refusing the application which the letter-carriers made for an advance in their wages in consequence of the rise in house-rent and in the price of provisions; and, whether these same considerations have not induced the magistrates of many counties to raise the salaries of the police?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERsaid, that in answer to his hon. Friend, he had to state that the decision to which he referred was, he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) believed, a decision of the Postmaster General never brought before the Treasury until it came under its notice in consequence of the Question of his hon. Friend; and it was a decision not upon the case of the whole of the letter-carriers of the Post Office, as, perhaps, the question might lead hon. Members to suppose, but upon an application from a considerable number of the country letter-carriers. He mentioned this because it was important to bear in mind, in considering
  962
  the decision of the Postmaster General, that his noble Friend did some years ago consider very fully and readjust the salaries in the great metropolitan department. In looking into the question to which his hon. Friend referred, the Postmaster General examined very carefully what was the alteration in the position of the letter-carriers in consequence of any rise in house-rents or in the price of particular provisions, and likewise—a matter which his hon. Friend's Question did not take notice of—of any fall in the price of particular provisions—due either to the legislation of that House or to some other cause. His noble Friend (Lord Stanley of Alderley) also had regard to another very important question—namely, what was the application all over the country for the situation of letter-carrier, and the degree of disposition shown by perfectly competent persons to undertake it. Examining the whole of that matter, and finding that there was no diminution in the number or in the quality of persons who were found desirous of obtaining the situation of letter-carrier, and likewise looking carefully into the questions of house-rent and provisions, he came to the conclusion that there was no sufficient ground for acceding to that application, and he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) confessed that his impression was that the decision was a wise one. With respect to the latter part of the Question, he had no information on the subject to which it referred; but he thought it very probable that what was there stated might be so. There were departments of the public service in which salaries had been raised, and that within no long time back. There might be others in which the same question was at present undergoing consideration; but he did not think that the course taken by magistrates with reference to the salaries in this or that particular county of the police, who were a recent institution, would afford any conclusive evidence with regard to the course which the Government ought to take in respect of the wages of letter-carriers.

MINES.—QUESTION.
MR. CLIVEasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether the Government is about to bring in any measure with reference to those Mines in Great Britain to which the Act 23 & 24 Vict. c 151 does not apply?
SIR GEORGE GREY, in reply, said, it was the intention of the Government to

963
bring in a Bill on the subject referred to, and they had been in communication with several members of the Commission as to the preparation of the Bill.

DUTY ON COFFEE.—QUESTION.
MR. MARSHasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether it is his intention to reduce the Duty on Coffee in the same proportion as the Duty on Tea has been reduced?
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: My hon. Friend is, no doubt, well aware, from his experience in Parliament, that the universal and inflexible rule of those who hold the office I do is to decline to answer any question in respect to the reduction of duties, except in those cases in which the Government itself has done some act which gives ground for the presumption that such reduction is intended. My opinion is that there is not any ground for reducing the duty on coffee with reference to the duty on tea, because I think they are things which ought to bear pretty nearly the same duty ad valorem. I believe the duty is about 6d. a pound on tea and 3d. a pound on coffee. There may be a difference of 2 or 3 per cent ad valorem; but I believe the relation is as fair as it is possible to make it.

WEIGHTS AND MEASURES.

  QUESTION.
  MR. DAWSONasked the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether, in the Bill contemplated by the Government for the better Regulation of Weights and Measures, provision will be made as to a scale of uniformity in Weights and Measures, to be applicable equally to all parts of the United Kingdom?
  MR. CHILDERSsaid, in reply, that his hon. Friend did not quite understand the answer which he had given yesterday. It related to the Exchequer standards, and to copies made of those standards. The present question related more to the law as to weights and measures in force in England and Ireland, which was not directly the object of the Bill in question.

CATTLE STATISTICS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. READasked the President of the Board of Trade, What machinery will be employed in taking the number of Cattle,
  964
  and whether any portion of the Vote for Agricultural Statistics will be applied to defray the expenses of the Cattle Returns?
  MR. MILNER GIBSONsaid, in reply, that the machinery employed was this. A schedule was drawn up by the Board of Trade, it was sent through the Post Office to the owners of live stock, and certain officers of the Inland Revenue then made up the aggregate Returns. The Vote to which the hon. Gentleman referred would be applicable to the collection of those statistics.

IRELAND—QUEEN'S UNIVERSITY AND QUEEN'S COLLEGES.

  QUESTION.
  SIR ROBERT PEEL: Perhaps it would be convenient for the House, as I have already obtained the concurrence of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that I should ask the right hon. Gentleman, as the organ of the Government, a Question with respect to the subject which stands on the Notice Paper to-day in my name. I should like, with the permission of the House, to put that Question prefaced by a very few remarks, but I am altogether in the hands of the House. I think, considering the importance of the Question, and the answer given by the Chancellor of the Exchequer the other night, that the House would perhaps allow me. Sir, the Motion which stands in my name on the Paper is now well-known to hon. Members. I may be blamed because sufficient time has not been allowed to elapse between putting the Notice on the Paper, and the Motion to which that Notice refers; but I will explain how that has occurred. We—for I do not speak in my own name only, but I speak on behalf of many hon. and right hon. Members in this House—have felt that the circumstances of the case were so important, and the danger so great to the principles which were involved in the existing system of the Queen's University—namely, united secular University education for the youth of Ireland of all denominations upon a footing of complete equality—that we believed no time was to be lost in bringing the question under the notice of the House. And, even supposing I had not obtained the permission of the House to make a few remarks, such is the importance of the question that, to put myself in order, I would, if necessary, conclude by making a Motion of adjournment.
  MR. SPEAKER: Unless I am otherwise directed by the House, and unless the House desires, that there should be a departure from our ordinary rules, I must remind the right hon. Baronet of the exact state of the case. The right hon. Baronet has given Notice that at a later period of the evening, on the Motion for going into Committee of Supply, he will make a Motion upon this subject. The right hon. Baronet has the liberty, if he pleases, to change that Motion into the form of a Question; but, in putting the Question he is bound to observe the rules which are prescribed, and I must also add that it will not be in his power to do what he has just said he might do, to make a Motion to adjourn the House for the purpose of this discussion. Because he has given Notice of his intention at a later period of the evening to move an Address, he cannot now by anticipation go into that question, by moving the adjournment of the House.
  SIR ROBERT PEEL: I am quite willing, Sir, to bow to your decision, but in my own justification I must say that it is at the desire of the Chancellor of the Exchequer that I rise to put this Question. I will merely say that, in consequence of the dialogue which took place between us the other night, I saw my right hon. Friend, and he informed me that there appeared to be some misunderstanding with respect to the answer which he then gave, and he told me—and it will be a great satisfaction to the House to hear it—that the Government, having seen the Notice which I put on the Paper, have been graciously pleased to yield to the general wish of the House—they have determined not to obtain the Sign Manual of the Sovereign until they have submitted the question to the judgment of the House. The Chancellor of the Exchequer will tell you so.
  MR. SPEAKER: I must remind the right hon. Baronet that this is rather an answer to the Question than the Question itself.
  SIR ROBERT PEEL: The intelligence was so gratifying to myself and other hon. Members that I could not forbear from saying that, in consequence, I believe, of this notice of mine—as the Chancellor of the Exchequer will tell you—nothing will be done to alter the Charter. ["Order, order!"] Well, then, I will ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer—Is it or is it not the case that since the Notice which
  966
  I placed upon the Paper the other night the Government have determined to yield to what appeared to be the wishes of the House? Will they or will they not make any alteration in the Charter of the Queen's University without first consulting the House as to the propriety of those changes?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Sir, in the first place let me say that I think no man could blame my right hon. Friend, with the feelings which he ascribes to himself—believing that the House was in danger of being taken by surprise—for having looked for the first opportunity of interposing. That is my first answer. My next answer will not be precisely the same in form. My right hon. Friend has asked whether, since the Notice which he placed on the Paper the other night, Her Majesty's Government have determined not to make any alteration in the Charter of the Queen's University without first consulting the House as to the propriety of the change. In reply to that, I have to say that there has been no change whatever in the intentions of Her Majesty's Government since or before the appearance of the Notice of my right hon. Friend. But the Question put to me upon the former day by my right hon. Friend, if I recollect it rightly, was, whether I would lay upon the table of the House a draft of the Charter as proposed to be altered before advising the Queen to sign it. ["No, no !"] So I understood the Question. Such I believe it to be, and to that Question I must answer now, as then, in the negative. But I said at that time that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department was prepared to lay upon the table of the House at the earliest possible period the correspondence relating to this subject; and if the object of my right hon. Friend is simply to be fully informed of the advice which the Government may think it their duty to give to the Crown in this important matter, I entirely concur with him in thinking it is quite reasonable that that information should be given. I always thought that last year, when the Government came to its preliminary Resolution on this subject, the very first tiling done was to state to this House the nature of the changes which it was proposed to make. Since that time there has been much correspondence on the subject. That correspondence is not yet concluded. I believe the House will not think there is anything strange in the delay which has

  967
  occurred. Naturally, the communications on this subject must be undertaken by the Lord Lieutenant and the Chief Secretary for Ireland, and recently, as the House is aware, these personages have had other more pressing questions to consider than those of University education. My right hon. Friend himself will move to lay on the table the correspondence as far as it has gone, and when it is concluded, and the Government have made up their minds—not before, and are ready to announce their conclusion, they will put the House at the earliest moment in possession of the fullest information on the subject. As to the Charter, it will naturally follow the conclusion at which the Government shall arrive upon points which that Charter may embrace, and I think I may say to my right hon. Friend that he need not be in the least afraid that he will be unable in point of time to bring the subject under the notice of the House, and to challenge the Government, if he thinks fit, before the Crown has committed any formal act, but not before the Administration have given any advice they may think it their duty to give to the Crown before the Crown is committed to that formal act. It was our intention, whether we are or are not compelled by law to do so, to clearly place under the view of Parliament the opinions we hold on the subject of University education in Ireland, and the advice which in consequence of these opinions it would be our duty to give the Crown. It was and is our intention to raise the question by asking the House to vote certain sums for scholarships to be opened to candidates from the Queen's Colleges, and to any other persons entitled to be examined in the Queen's University. In that manner we thought we should bring the matter fully and clearly before the House. We entirely agree with the right hon. Baronet in thinking this question one of great importance and great difficulty. I promise the right hon. Gentleman that the Government will fully and cordially state their views on the subject to the House, and that nothing shall be done to preclude the House from fully considering the question at the proper time.
  MR. BAXTERsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, whether the Papers relating to the question of Irish University education which the Government have promised to lay on the table, will include the memorials which had been presented
  968
  praying that no change should be made in the present system, as well as those asking for a change?
  SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, that there would be no objection to laying on the table the memorials referred to by the hon. Gentleman.
  MR. LOWE: As I am very anxious, Sir, that there should not again be any misunderstanding on this subject, I wish to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer a question. Am I to understand from him that when the Government has made up its mind on this subject it will first tender advice to the Crown, and then give Parliament an opportunity of expressing its opinion? Is that to be the course adopted? Or will Parliament be asked its opinion before any advice is given to the Crown?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Our first duty will be to make up our minds on the question. Nothing could be more unworthy on our part than to bring this important question before the House previous to our having made up our own minds as to the course we should pursue. It will be perfectly practical, right, and convenient that no definite proceeding shall be taken by the Crown before the House has an opportunity of expressing its opinion.
  MR. LOWE: But will the Government give their advice to the Crown before Parliament has an opportunity of giving its opinion on the subject?
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUERwas understood to answer in the negative.

CATTLE PLAGUE BILL.

  QUESTION.
  MR. HUNTasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether, in the event of the Report on the Cattle Plague Bill being brought up that evening, there will be any objection to taking the third reading of the Bill?
  SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, that Her Majesty's Government could not assent to the request of the hon. Gentleman unless the Bill were printed. Last night he strongly advised that the Bill should be printed, so as to be in the hands of hon. Members that day. This had not been done, and, considering the great number of alterations that had been made in the Bill, the Government could not adopt the course proposed by the hon. Member.

RAILWAY SIGNALS.—QUESTION.
SIR WILLIAM GALLWEYasked the President of the Board of Trade, Whether, with a view to insure the safety of the public, he had endeavoured to impress upon the railway authorities the necessity of providing means by which passengers in railway trains could communicate with the guard of the train? He also wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman, whether his attention has been called to a recent accident on the Great Western Railway, when, a; collision having occurred, the passengers in one of the trains were unable to escape, owing to the fact that the doors of the train were locked? He would also beg to ask the right hon. Gentleman, whether he intends to introduce a Bill by which a penalty would be imposed on all railway companies, the officers of which either did not provide sufficient means of communication between the passengers in a train and the guard, or who locked the doors of a passenger train, thus cutting off all chance of escape in case of accident?
MR. MILNER GIBSON: I should be willing to give the hon. Baronet the particulars to which he has referred, if I had had earlier notice of the Question. As to his further inquiry—whether we have endeavoured to induce railway companies to adopt some means of communication between the passengers and guard, and between the guard and driver—my answer is, we have done so. I have myself seen the Chairman of the Committee appointed by the principal railway companies to consider the question more than once, and I have pressed upon him the necessity of doing something. The hon. Member for Dudley has given notice of a Bill on the subject, and when he brings it forward we can discuss the question.

TAME VALLEY VIADUCT.—QUESTION.
SIR ROBERT PEEL: Can the right hon. Gentleman answer the Question I put to him the other night, and which he was then unable to answer? [See page 868.]
MR. MILNER GIBSON: I thought I had answered the Question relating to the bridge, and I must give the same answer I did before—namely, that the railway in question was open previous to the time when the Board of Trade had any jurisdiction or power of inspection. I assume we have now power, but no representation has been made to the Board of Trade. I
970
am not aware that at any recent period of time our attention has been called to the subject. I promised the right hon. Baronet to make inquiry, but I have not yet had time to do so fully.

DEEP SEA OYSTER FISHERIES.

  QUESTION.
  MR. STEPHEN CAVEsaid, that perhaps he might be allowed to make a few remarks by way of introduction and explanation to the Question which stood in his name. It might not be generally known that the oyster fishers of the south coast—those, that was to say, west of the North Foreland—laboured under disabilities from which those upon all other coasts were exempt. This, however, was unfortunately the case, and for this reason:—In the year 1839 a Convention was concluded between England and France, the chief object of which was to reserve the exclusive right of fishing within a certain distance of the shore to the subjects of the respective countries. Unfortunately, those who were intrusted with the preparation of the Convention did not confine themselves to this, but drew up a series of regulations which might be found embodied in no less than eighty-nine clauses in the schedule to the Act of 1843, by which the Convention was carried into effect. These clauses contained minute regulations respecting fisheries which ought never to have formed part of such a Convention, and for this reason—that under it they were not applied to places in which France and England had common jurisdiction, but either to the sea within the three mile limit, where the municipal authorities alone had cither interest or power to enforce them, or to the deep sea beyond those limits, which was common to all the world; and in which we might create artificial disabilities for each other, but could not impose them upon other nations, who were free to act as they pleased. The attempt by France and England to enforce special restrictions in localities over which they had no power was not more reasonable than if they were to make Game Laws for the preservation of antelopes in South Africa. The framers of these regulations seemed, however, to have proceeded on the assumption that the whole channel between England and France was under the co-ordinate jurisdiction of the two countries. The moment the attempt was made to carry out the new Act it proved

  971
  so burdensome that the authorities began at once to modify and evade it by the convenient means of Orders in Council. First, it was decided that the Convention was not in force within the three mile limit. Next, it was held that it applied only to coasts west of the North Foreland, though the terms were clearly intended to have a more extensive meaning; so that, practically, it had been reduced to the deep sea between England and France, which was open to all the world, and fished by Belgians and Dutch, who were subject to no restrictions. Indeed, the latter practical people had set us the example of abolishing all restrictions as to close months and peculiar modes of fishing, and, as it was stated, a marked improvement had since taken place in the condition of their fishing industry. After what had been said, no one would wonder that there was scarcely a clause in the Act about which lawyers did not differ. Sometimes an ignorant, hardworking fisherman became the helpless victim of an over-zealous cruiser or Customs officer; he submitted perforce. As one of the Shoreham witnesses said, "We are poor people, and cannot stand against the Government." "But when powerful companies defied interference a message came down from the Board of Trade that, by the advice of the Law Officers of the Crown, the regulations had better not be enforced. In other cases prosecutions had commenced and never concluded. While there was this general objection to the Convention, that it was framed upon the assumption that France and England had jurisdiction over the whole channel, there was this in addition—that it also took for granted that the same enactments were suitable for the whole wide range. Hence, some were extremely mischievous, and none more so than those which fixed the close time for oysters. These were applicable, indeed, to the shallow water beds near the shore, the only ones the framers of the Convention knew anything of, and followed the well known rule of the months without an "r," in other words, dredging was prohibited from April to September. Unfortunately, the only beds where this could be enforced were those to which it did not apply. The deep sea beds were from twenty to fifty miles from shore, of such enormous extent that boats dredged the! same bank thirty miles apart, and new ones were constantly discovered. In these the fish spawned when they spawned at
  972
  all, in July and August; and consequently, the month of the whole year when they were in worst condition was September, when the fishing began, and the best in May and June, when it was forbidden. Hence, the dredgers were forced by the shortness of time they had for stocking their beds to bring oysters in at the very time they would not, if left to their own discretion. The Convention was not intended to apply to these banks, which were not known in 1839, and for years the dredgers worked all the year round. But in 1852 complaints were made by the French, and the Act of 1855 was passed, which was so stringent that the Shoreham fishermen were not allowed to carry their dredges in their boats to the east coast, but were compelled to send them by railway, at great expense, till relaxation was procured last year, permitting them to be carried if tied up and sealed by the Customs. In 1859 this subject was brought before the House by Sir George Pechell, M.P. for Brighton, and since his death he (Mr. Cave) had been so impressed with the hardship of the case that he had frequently introduced it at the risk of appearing importunate. In 1863 Mr. Fen-wick, M.P. for Sunderland, and himself, moved for a Royal Commission, and, though the Motion was resisted by the President of the Board of Trade, a majority of the House decided that sufficient cause had been shown; and he might, perhaps, take it as some evidence that it was not considered a very unreasonable proceeding by the powers that be, since his co-conspirator was now a Member of the Government which then opposed the Motion. He heard before this that communications had been made to the French Government, but the reply was that they must have the whole Convention or none, and the impression was that they pressed this point, which could be of no importance to them, in order to get rid of all. After two years' inquiry, the Commissioners had come to the same conclusion with himself, and recommended the termination of the Convention and the repeal of the Acts enforcing it. They asserted that the restrictions were injurious to the fishermen, by paralyzing their trade and inducing them to break the law; injurious to the oyster-beds, which, according to all evidence, were most productive when most worked and cleared from mud and weed; and injurious to the public, by restricting the supply at the very time the oysters were

  973
  most fit for food. He hoped, therefore, Her Majesty's Government intended to carry into effect the recommendations of the Commissioners with the least possible delay. He had heard of arrangements for an International Commission to go again into the whole matter; but surely this was unnecessary in a question which was more one of principle than of detail—whether, namely, any restrictions should be imposed upon our fishermen in respect of seas which were open to all the world. The time was drawing near when the restrictions would be again in force—when, after a most stormy winter, which must have unusually curtailed their operations, the fishermen of the southern coast would find their means of livelihood suspended by an arbitrary law, while they would have the mortification of seeing whole fleets pursue beyond an imaginary line the honest industry from which they were debarred. He therefore implored the Government to consider whether notice of the termination of the Convention could not at once be given to the French Government, and, without trespassing longer on the patience of the House he begged to ask the Question, Whether the Government intend to carry into effect the recommendation of the Deep Sea Fishery Commission respecting the Deep Sea Oyster Fishery?
  MR. DU CANEsaid, that in the interest of a large number of his constituents, he must entirely endorse the statement of the hon. Gentleman, and join in the hope he had expressed, that the Government would see the necessity of taking immediate action upon the Report of the Royal Commission, and that if it were really necessary to settle the matter by an International Commission, the Government would get it appointed forthwith. He should like to see the powers of the French Convention largely altered, if not totally repealed. Since 1843 the regulations of the Convention Act had been nothing but a fruitful source of jealousy, difficulty, and misunderstanding, not merely between the fishermen of England and France, but also between our own fishermen and the Government of this country. Not only had those provisions been extensively evaded with the knowledge and consent of Her Majesty's Government, but the highest legal authorities differed as to the manner in which the regulations ought to be interpreted. It was a moot point, for example, whether the provisions of the Convention had any
  974
  force within the three mile coast line, or whether they referred only to the deep water. And he further believed no one could say where the coast line commenced and where it ended. If you put the question to the Board of Trade, they would tell you probably that the coast line regulations applied to the whole of the southern and eastern coast. If, on the other hand, you asked the fishermen themselves, they would answer that the Board of Trade had itself drawn a line from the North Foreland on one coast to Dunkirk on the other, north of which the coast line regulations had no application; and, in point of fact, when a year or two since the Board of Trade tried to enforce its own view on the Colchester fishermen, the fishermen of Colchester defied the Government to send cruisers after them; and though he never heard that a naval engagement had taken place, he believed that a civil action was still pending between the Board of Trade and the Colchester fishermen on this question. The Commissioners, in their Report, forcibly pointed out the difficulty of carrying out the law, and the uncertainty attending its administration. They said—
  "It is obvious that the uncertainty attending the law must be very prejudicial to the interests of the oyster trade, and, in fact, the law is administered very differently, according to the views which the commanders of cruisers take of the Convention. A dredgerman of Colchester thus described it to us:—'The commander of one cutter will come on board a vessel and say, You ought only to have oysters of such a size; and another will say, You ought not to have a dredge on board; and a third, that we ought not to be here; and the next that we ought not to be there. What with all these different opinions, we never know what we ought to do. In point of fact, the interference to which we are subjected has regularly paralyzed our trade. We are obliged to act contrary to the law; if we did not we should starve, or should have to seek some other mode of gaining a living.'"
  The Government must feel that all that perplexity and misconstruction must be very prejudicial to the trade affected by it; and therefore he must express his earnest hope that, if immediate legislation on the subject were impossible, the Government would use their best endeavours to have an International Commission in order, if possible, totally to repeal the present vexatious regulations, or at all events to have the moot question of the coast limit thoroughly determined. He joined with the hon. Member for Shore-ham (Mr. Cave), in asking the Government to effect some relaxation of the

  975
  close month system. The close time extended from the 1st of May to the 30th of August; and deep sea fishing was during that time prohibited to the deep sea fishermen of England and France, although dredging was carried on within the coast line with the connivance of the Government and deep sea fishing was not interdicted to the fishermen of other nations. The fishermen of Essex, as well as those of Sussex, looked upon that as a very great hardship. There was only one unanimous opinion among all engaged in deep sea dredging—that it would be a great boon to the trade if the close month period were, if not abolished, at least relaxed so as to allow of deep sea fishing during the months of May and June. The facts of the case he believed to be that the spawning or "spatting" time, as it was called, of the deep sea oyster was at least two months later than that of the oyster in beds within the coast line and in shallower water, certainly the deep sea oyster was never better, or in finer condition, than during the months of May and June. Another reason which rendered the relaxation of the close month system imperatively necessary was the fact that the Convention was originally drawn up under the mistaken idea that a certain period for lying fallow was essential to maintain the productiveness of the oyster beds. That was an entirely exploded notion. All the authorities on oyster-culture, including Mr. Frank Buckland, agreed that, the more they dredged an oyster-bed, the more productive it was; and that to let a bed lie fallow for any length of time was tantamount to causing its destruction, by the accumulation of mud, sea grass, and sea vermin of all kinds. And in this respect the natural history of the sea resembled that of the land, that these months of May and June were precisely those in which the greatest growth of sea grass took place, and in which repeated dredging was necessary for cleansing the beds, if for no other purpose. If, therefore, the months of May and June were given for the carrying on of the deep sea fishing, not only would the supply of oysters in our markets be increased, but the oyster trade would be materially benefited, and a great improvement effected in the condition of thousands of hard-working men now dependent on that calling for their subsistence. With regard to the formation of private companies, he believed
  976
  there were many parts of this coast where the French system of oyster-culture might be fully and fairly tried. But in appropriating any ground for that purpose care ought to be taken to avoid any ground where public fishing was already extensively carried on, and where a public right might be said to exist. Before grants were made the grounds ought, as much as possible, to be put up to public competition, and some guarantee should be required that they would be effectually worked, that a large increase in the supply of oysters would be the consequence of any such grant; and that it was the intention of those who applied for a grant to cultivate the ground in an efficient manner, and not as had been tried before now, under pretence of forming a company to get a monopoly of public ground into the hands of a few fishermen only. He thought the whole question, not of our oyster fisheries only, but of our fisheries generally, was one of great importance, and he trusted they would receive an assurance from the Government that immediate action would be taken upon it.
  MR. REBOW, as representing the people of Colchester, who thought they alone possessed the real "natives," wished to say a few words on that subject. He could confirm all that had been said by the hon. Member opposite in reference to the deep sea fishing. In conjunction with other gentlemen he had been to the Board of Trade, in order to induce the Department to interfere in regard to the treaty with France. One great object of the fishermen on our eastern coast was to obtain an extension of the period of fishing for the deep sea oysters, which were in the finest condition during the months of May and June. That fact, however, had not been discovered at the time when the treaty was made, and the fishing months were fixed. The object of the Coln Fishery Company was at present to obtain a positive assurance as to the line of demarcation over which the French Treaty extended. The East coast fishermen held that they ought to be enabled to fish in the German Ocean, from which they were supposed to be excluded by the French Convention.
  SIR PERCY BURRELLdesired to add his testimony to that already given, as to the excellent condition in which the deep sea oyster was in May and June, and impressed upon the Government the necessity of their speedily taking the whole subject into consideration.
  MR. BLAKEobserved, that living in the neighbourhood of an important fishing station on the coast of Ireland, he wished to call the attention of the President of the Board of Trade to the condition of this branch of industry in Ireland, and to the desirability of giving the earliest possible effect to the recommendations of the Commissioners. It would, no doubt, be within the recollection of the House that, when Mr. Fenwick, the late Member for Sunderland, moved an Address to the Crown for a Royal Commission to inquire into the Sea Fisheries of the United Kingdom, the Government opposed the Motion, which, however, was ultimately carried by a small majority. He thought the country, and especially Ireland, had reason to rejoice that the Motion was successful, for the inquiry had proved to be one of great national importance. He had himself attended some of the meetings of the Commissioners in Ireland, and he could bear testimony to the intelligence, zeal, and urbanity with which the inquiry was carried out, and which resulted in the production of an enormous amount of useful evidence, terminating with a valuable Report, which he had no hesitation in saying was one of the most complete and trustworthy that had been presented to Parliament for a very long period. The Commissioners made two recommendations with respect to Ireland, which he wished to impress upon the Government. They stated that there was a great falling off in the number of boats and men employed along the coast. In the year 1830 there were 13,119 vessels of all classes, and 64,771 men and boys employed in the trade. In 1836, when the stimulus of bounties or loan funds was withdrawn, the number of vessels fell to 10,761, and the men and boys to 54,119. In 1845, immediately before the famine, the number of vessels was 19,883, and the men and boys 93,073; in 1848 (after the famine), the number of vessels fell to 15,932, and the men and boys to 70,111; while last year the number of vessels was but 9,300, and the hands had fallen to 40,946. This showed a diminution within the last twenty years of 10,583 boats, and of 52,127 men. The Commissioners added that the numbers given for 1865, reduced as they were, still appeared to be large as compared with the produce of the fisheries indicated by the railway returns and the supplies in the principal
  978
  markets. But it was explained to them that a very small portion of the 40,000 men and boys stated to be employed in the fisheries were fishermen in the true sense of the term. The fishing population in many parts of Ireland had not yet recovered from the depression and ruin caused by the famine; while the subsequent emigration had taken off the ablest of the fishermen, leaving behind the old, the feeble, and the incompetent. These causes naturally led to a considerable falling-off in the general supply of fish from the Irish coast; but the Commissioners were of opinion that, if double the number of men made a living wholly or in part by fishing twenty years ago, it was not to be supposed that over-fishing within the last few years could have contributed to that result. They believed that "with greater enter-prize, skill, and capital, a greatly increased supply of fish might be produced from the seas round Ireland." The Commissioners recommended that all Acts of Parliament which profess to regulate or restrict the modes of fishing pursued in the open seas should be repealed, and that unrestricted freedom of fishing be permitted hereafter. Finally, they recommended that all restrictions which prevent foreign fishermen from entering British or Irish ports for the sale of fish be removed in Great Britain and Ireland, and that measures be taken to secure the like freedom for British fishermen in foreign ports. Previous to the withdrawal of the bounty system the fishing trade flourished to a certain extent on the Irish coast, because an inducement was offered to invest capital in that particular enterprize, but the bounties were discontinued because they were considered contrary to the principles of political economy, and the trade decreased. Now, however, he was happy to say that since the Commissioners had held their inquiry a more hopeful feeling prevailed in Ireland. Their Report was received with general satisfaction. Since its publication seven or eight joint-stock fishing companies had been started. One of these had a capital of £30,000, and so well was it thought of by the public that the shares were at once taken up, and there was not one to be had in the market at present. One or two steamers intended to be employed in the trade were also in the course of construction, in the hope that the present unwise and unjust restrictions would be removed. The removal of these restric-

  979
  tions would give an immense impetus to the trade in Ireland, would furnish remunerative employment to a great number of people, and would supply the English markets with an abundant supply of cheap and wholesome food. There was another subject in connection with the subject of Irish fisheries which he wished to mention, as it was essential to the success of the trade. Twenty years ago a sum of £20,000 was granted to assist persons interested in the fishing trade in the construction of suitable piers. That sum had been all expended, and he was sorry to say that a considerable portion of it had been diverted from its original object, for, instead of piers being built to accommodate fishing-boats, the money got into the hands of landowners, and it was expended for the accommodation of turf boats and for other purposes. Now, he begged to represent that unless some funds were found to build piers, and to provide harbour facilities for fishing-boats on the south and south-west coast of Ireland, it would be impossible to carry out the recommendations of the Fishery Commissioners. Tramore, in the county of Waterford, for instance, was a considerable fishing station, and the persons interested in the trade raised two-thirds of the sum necessary to entitle them to get one-third from the fund, and after this great effort had been made they were told that there was no more money, as the whole fund had been exhausted. Another essential element for the development of the Irish fisheries, in addition to carrying out the recommendations of the Commissioners, and providing suitable piers and harbour facilities, would be the placing of the fisheries under some vigorous and efficient central authority. This was a matter of great importance, and he ventured respectfully to urge it upon the attention of the President of the Board of Trade; also the desirability of giving immediate effect to the recommendations of the Royal Commissioners.

POSTAGE STAMP FOR NEWSPAPERS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. DARBY GRIFFITHasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether he is aware that certain Railways have commenced carrying Newspapers along the whole extent of their lines by means of an adhesive Stamp of the price of a halfpenny for each transmission; and, if so, whether it would not be expedient that the Stamp
  980
  for the transmission of Newspapers through the Post Office should be reduced to the same amount? For some time past most of the railways had adopted the system of conveying newspapers and other periodicals for half the price of the Post Office charge; and he now received his newspaper by the Great Western Railway with a halfpenny stamp affixed. Under the ordinary law of competition the practice would soon become universal. The present postal law was altogether anomalous; for while the impressed stamp served to carry a newspaper through the Post Office several times for a period of fifteen days, the affixed stamp answered the purpose of only one transmission. The tax also fell upon the newspapers with great inequality; for whereas the impressed stamp on the old and high-priced papers amounted to 30 per cent of the selling price, in the case of the cheap journals the percentage was 100. He received a short time since a communication from a gentleman at Hawick, stating that the North British, the Caledonian, and some other of the great Scotch railways were carrying newspapers at a farthing each, and he held in his hand some of their stamps. If the railway companies could, in a commercial point of view, carry newspapers on their whole line for a farthing it was evident that the Post Office could convey them for less than a penny. There was a margin of 300 per cent difference. He confessed that he thought the railway price almost incredibly low. Having a grateful recollection of the kind consideration which the Chancellor of the Exchequer had on former occasions given to similar representations, he would leave the matter in his hands without requiring any positive answer from him at present; but would be quite satisfied with an assurance that the right hon. Gentleman would consider the subject.

LAW OF RATING.—QUESTION.
MR. GATHORNE HARDT, in rising to call the attention of the House to a recent decision of the House of Lords on the Rating of the Mersey Docks; and to ask the President of the Poor Law Board questions as to the conduct of the Board in consequence of that decision; and also as to the intention of the Government with respect to the law of rating generally, and especially as it affects charitable institu-

981
tions, such as schools, hospitals, &c, said: The subject to which I wish to call the attention of the House if not of pressing, is at least of growing interest, and will become more so as the consequences of the decision to which I refer are spread throughout the country. I am not going to enter into any discussion as to the grounds of that decision. I am not going to say that it is in any respect contrary to law; on the contrary, if the statute had now been brought for the first time under the notice of the courts of law, it is probable that they would have come to the same decision at which the House of Lords has arrived in the case of the Mersey Docks. At the same time the effect of that decision is so great, and its consequences will be so serious to every part of the country, and it is so much more like legislation than a mere judgment of a court of law, that I have thought it advisable to take the earliest opportunity of calling the attention of the House to the question for the purpose of ascertaining what course the Government intend to adopt, and whether they will propose legislation as a means of remedying the grievances which may arise in consequence of that decision. The decision has made the docks in the Mersey, which for a long time have been exempt from rating, subject to rating. They were exempt from rating on the ground that as all the proceeds of the docks were supposed to go to public purposes, there was no occupier who had a beneficial interest therein, and therefore there was no one to be rated. That is the principle on which many persons have been exempted from rating, they being regarded as merely "occupiers" without beneficial interest. I am not going to dwell upon the subject of the docks; but I may state that their exemption from rateability arose from a decision of Lord Mansfield—who decided that the Hospital of St. Luke's, in London, was not rateable because the trustees in occupation had no beneficial interest in it, and that the poor persons receiving benefits from it were the real occupiers, and they, of course, could not be rated. From that decision have flowed all the subsequent decisions with respect to hospitals, schools, and other charitable institutions of the country which, up to the period of the recent decision of the House of Lords, have, with certain exceptions, been exempted from rateability. It is a remarkable thing that two centuries and a half
982
should have elapsed from the passing of the statute of Elizabeth without any decision having been arrived at as to the meaning of an "occupier" under the statute. The fact is that the statute of Elizabeth intended to rate all persons who derived any benefit from any property whatever—not only from real property, but from stock-in-trade and personal property. The two latter have been for a long time exempt, and are exempted by Act of Parliament, owing to the difficulty of carrying the law into effect. But with respect to the question of charities, it seems to me that a most material point arises for the consideration of the House and the Government. The question is whether or no they will leave charities as they are now placed by the judgment of the House of Lords, or whether they will take steps to place them in the same position as that which they occupied before that decision was given; or, if they will not do that, whether they will take steps to regulate the whole system of rating in this country, and take care that those institutions which are now exempt by statute shall not remain so—whether they will repeal those statutes, or what means they will adopt with the view of dealing equitably with respect to all persons who are called upon to pay rates in this country. It may be said that I am carrying the effect of this decision too far; but I think I am falling short of the difficulties which may arise from it. If it goes the length of rendering all chanties which are now free from rates liable to them, then it will place most serious difficulties in the way of many charities which can barely struggle on at present. If, on the other hand, their position will be doubtful, it will plunge them into litigation with the view of ascertaining their real and actual position. It was said by some of the noble Lords who pronounced judgment in the case, that where there has been a long series of decisions they have almost the effect of legislation, and that in such cases, even if the decision be wrong, it ought to be set right by legislation, and not by the supervision of a superior court. Now, what has taken place with respect to the question of rating? Since the decision in the case of St. Luke's, charities have been exempt from rating. On the faith of that exemption buildings have been erected, contracts have been entered into, liabilities have been incurred, and engagements have been made by persons

983
who now experience the greatest difficulties in carrying on the charities. My attention has been called to the case of the city of Norwich by the Chancellor of the diocese (Mr. Evans), and in order to show the effect which the decision of the House of Lords will have on the charities of the country, I will state to the House the information which he has given me relative to that particular case. He says that the aggregate assessable rental of all their charities amounts to about £2,000 a year; and that as the poor rates and other local rates are very nearly one-third of the rental, the charities would be subject to an annual payment of about £700. So that you will be taking from charities, schools, and other institutions £700 a year which they have enjoyed, which they supposed they had the right to enjoy in consequence of the decisions of the courts having continued in the same course for at least 100 years; and he feared that the effect of this additional burden might be to cause the schools in some of the poorer parishes, which have hitherto been with difficulty maintained, to be closed. It may be said that the decisions cannot be reconciled one with another, and that of late years the courts have generally decided against exemptions instead of in their favour. That is true. But in all the cases in which the exemptions were not confirmed the courts went out of their way to say that they were not overruling former decisions, but were acting upon distinctions which would allow both sets of cases to stand together. No attempt has been made to overrule the decision in the case of St. Luke's, St. Bartholomew's, and a great many other institutions, the Judges recognizing that as the standard and fixed law, and although they carried out the principle of the liability to rating further than they had done before, they expressed their opinion that the cases would stand together, and that they were not overruling the old law. But however that may be, we must look not to the new exposition of the law, but to the decisions on which the charities relied. They relied on decisions which have been recognized by all the courts; and now, by the judgment of the House of Lords, the decisions of 100 years have been overthrown. I do not disagree with the judgment that has been given; but I think it right, in order to confirm what I have stated as to the consequences, to refer to what was stated by Mr. Justice Byles, who differed from the other Judges who advised the House of Lords, and who
984
thought that the cases are reconcilable, and that the Mersey Docks ought to be exempt on the ground that there was no one who had a beneficial occupation. Mr. Justice Byles goes on to say—
"If a dedication to public purposes be consistent with rateability, then for the future public hospitals like St. Bartholomew's Hospital, St. George's Hospital, the London Hospital, St. Thomas' Hospital, and other establishments of the like nature in the metropolis and throughout the kingdom, with a multitude of other public charities, become at once subject to poor rates. Lunatic asylums, like St. Luke's or Bethlehem in the metropolis, and county lunatic asylums also become assessable at their letting value; though in many instances the exemption of such institutions is recognized by Acts of Parliament, providing that land taken for the purpose shall retain its rateability to the extent of the value of the land without the buildings upon it."—[Law Journal, vol. xxxv.]
Now there is another point to which I wish to call the attention of the Government. Is the value of these institutions to be taken at what they are worth as institutions, or as what they would fetch as houses in their present situations applied to other purposes? Supposing you were to value some of these buildings for warehouse purposes, the rating would become enormous, and the pressure so severe that it could not be borne. Therefore you have not only to look at the question of rating, but whether the rating shall be on this hypothetical value. Mr. Justice Byles went on to say—
"Property is to be rated not at what a tenant does give, but at what he would give for it in its actual condition (6 & 7 Will. IV. c. 96). County gaols, county reformatories, county courts, and courts of justice, not only in counties and cities, but in the metropolis also (not, indeed, in Westminster Hall, because that is one of the Queen's palaces), may become rateable. The property of the Crown, in the occupation of the Crown, will no doubt still be protected from rate-ability; but old questions now at rest will re-appear as to other buildings occupied for public purposes, like the Horse Guards, the Admiralty, many buildings and residences at Portsmouth, Plymouth, Chatham, Milford Haven, and Greenwich, the British Museum, the National Gallery, Greenwich Hospital, the Custom House, the General Post Office, burial-grounds, many of the apartments in Somerset House, the premises occupied by the Poor Law Commissioners and other public bodies, public bridges, public turnpike-roads, and the soil of many navigable rivers, if not of public highways themselves."
Now, when a Judge of great ability and legal knowledge like Mr. Justice Byles expresses such opinions, I think I am not wrong in calling the attention of the House to the subject, and impressing on the Government the necessity of taking

985
some steps to place rating on an equitable basis. It is true the property of the Crown is exempt, on the ground that the Crown is not mentioned in the statute of Elizabeth. But how far has that doctrine been carried? It has been carried out not only where the Crown is in actual occupation, but in cases of occupation for public purposes. All county courts, police-stations, everything used for public purposes in connection with the State, have been brought under the exemption. But, according to Mr. Justice Byles, the question will now arise whether they shall be exempt from rating or not; and, therefore, unless some intervention takes place on the part of the Government, we do not know to what extent the decision may go. Now, with respect to what was intended by the statute of Elizabeth. It never could have been meant that charitable institutions should be rated, for it is remarkable that while the statute of Elizabeth provides that funds for the poor are to be raised by the taxation of every inhabitant, occupier, &c, it was provided by a subsequent clause, the 15th, that the
"Surplusage of the rates should be distributed by the justices for the relief of the poor hospitals in the county, and of those that should sustain losses by fire, water, the sea, or other casualties, and to such other charitable purposes for the relief of the poor."
It is pretty obvious that, inasmuch as this allusion is made to charitable institutions, which, so far from paying rates, were to receive the surplus of the rates, the intention of the statute of Elizabeth could not have been to rate charitable institutions. A gentleman of great intelligence waited on me the other day with respect to one of the hospitals in the metropolis. It is an institution of which it cannot be said any one party is more interested in it than another. It extends its benefits to persons of all creeds and opinions; it is an institution which all may concur in supporting. The locality in which it is situated derives the utmost advantage from it, and its benefits extend much beyond that locality. King's College Hospital is entirely dependent on voluntary contributions. It raises, with great difficulty and by special appeals, a sum of £9,000 a year. That sum is not sufficient for its support; and I believe that those who are connected with its management have often to find from their own resources the means of meeting the deficiency. It stands in the parish of St. Clement Danes, and gets from
986
the parish I understand only the small subscription of from £3 to £6. Such a sum is wholly insufficient to meet the expenses of the relief given to the sick poor of that particular parish in and out of the hospital. In 1858 the in-patients from St. Clement Danes were 317, and the out-patients 5,719. All these persons were attended gratuitously in that parish by this hospital. The rent charged by the parish for the ground on which the hospital stands is £240 per annum. The parish derives enormous benefit from the hospital, and these benefits are extended to St. Giles's, other neighbouring parishes, and to the public generally. Since the decision of the House of Lords it has been proposed to rate the hospital. The rating will amount to about £250 a year. How many persons will you deprive of the benefits conferred by the hospital by the imposition of this rate? Persons who contribute voluntarily to these institutions are anxious that their money shall go direct to the objects of the charity, not to the payment of rates and taxes; and many contributors, when they find that any deficiency arises from the imposition of the poor rate, will not be so ready to contribute to the payment of that deficiency, when they have their own rates to pay. All these institutions are conferring a benefit on the public; and the question is whether you are going to change the exemption from rating and load them with taxes at a moment when there is a great demand for them, and when their funds will barely meet their expenses. I do not wish to confine my remarks to hospitals. The principle of the law is that where the occupier has no distinct benefit, and the object is the public good, these institutions should be exempt. And I think the principle is a good one. It is a good thing that charity schools should be exempt. So also with respect to reformatories, industrial schools, and other similar institutions. I speak in no sectarian spirit. The British and Foreign Schools are now as liable to be rated as the National Schools. I would call attention to this fact—that Parliament itself in these latter years seems to have recognized these exemptions. By the 6 & 7 Will. IV. churches and chapels are exempt. Before that time they were only exempt where the pews were not let. Where there was a beneficial occupation they were rated. Parliament went further, and exempted dissenting chapels used as schools. I know that in the case of schools where payments

987
have been made it has been held that there is a beneficial occupation, and on that occupation rates have been laid. For instance, in the case of a Quakers' school it was held that it could not be treated as an institution for public purposes because a payment of £12 a year was made for pupils, and so a direct benefit was received from it, and the institution was not exempted. But, in addition to this, there is a most material circumstance to be considered if the law is to remain in its present state. For what is the case with respect to statutable exemptions? In many instances canal companies, gas companies, persons who have reclaimed land, are exempted from liability beyond what that property was subject to at the time it was first taken for their purposes. In many cases such land has become of enormous value. The London Gas Company possess land of immense value, and the rating is very low on account of statutable exemptions, many of which exemptions were given because it was supposed the property was to be used for public purposes. I wish to ask the House whether scientific and literary institutions are to stand upon a better footing than those great charities or not? They are exempted by statute. For instance, there is the Linnsean Society, which is a most excellent institution and most useful—is that to be put upon the footing of charitable institutions such as I have described—hospitals, schools, reformatories, asylums, and institutions of that nature? Again, there is a literary institution and library society at Bradford, which seemed to me to be very like a reading-room, and that is exempted from rateability under the statute which exempts literary institutions. How can the Government allow that state of things to continue while charities are rated? Now I have detained the House more than I originally intended, but it was difficult to explain what I wished without going rather into detail. I would sum up what I have said in this way. By the statute of Elizabeth occupiers were to be rated in respect of their occupations of property; and the interpretation which from the beginning up to the decision of last year has been put upon that occupation must be that it is what is termed a beneficial occupation. That interpretation was confirmed repeatedly, and especially by the decision of Lord Mansfield, which has been followed up by one continued current of decisions exempting all those charities of
988
the character I have referred to, with exceptions which were made upon grounds not supposed to affect those decisions, up to the period when Lord Campbell became Chief Justice of the Queen's Bench. Lord Campbell took a strong view with respect to exemptions, and in his opinion exemptions were not justifiable, or, at all events, not politic. He took a stringent view of all cases of exemption that came before him, bat even under those circumstances I am not aware that in any case of a distinct charity, where its appropriation to public purposes was the main and distinct object, and no private benefit was sought, he overruled the decisions that were up to that time in force. The Mersey Docks, no doubt, stand upon a different footing. It may be fairly argued that there is a distinct beneficial occupation, because the trustees raise funds upon bonds, and levy tolls or rates to pay the interest. There is, therefore, a distinct beneficial occupation in raising money to pay off debts which they had contracted. But the decision of the House of Lords recognized no such distinction from charitable institutions, for Lord Westbury, in giving his judgment, called the attention of their Lordships to the question of the manner in which public charities might be affected by their judgment. The noble and learned Lord said—
"Independently of the decided cases—several of which are irreconcilable with each other—it would seem easy to answer this inquiry; and having regard to the Parochial Assessment Act it may be said, in answer, that Occupation to be rateable must be of property yielding, or capable of yielding, a net annual value—that is to say, a clear rent over and above the probable average cost of the repairs, insurance, and other expenses, if any, necessary to maintain the property in a state to command such rent' It is in this sense I understand the words 'beneficial occupation,' whenever it is said that to support a rate the occupation must be a beneficial one. For on principle it is by no means necessary that the occupation should be beneficial to the occupier. It is sufficient if the property be capable of a clear rent over and above the necessary outgoings. So trustees who are in law the tenants and occupiers of valuable property upon trust for charitable purposes, such as hospitals and lunatic asylums, are in principle rateable, notwithstanding that the buildings are actually occupied by paupers who are sick or insane."
So that any building or any occupation capable of producing rental is, in Lord Westbury's view, subject to being rated. Does not the principle extend to Crown and Government property? For instance, officers at Woolwich occupy houses taken

989
by the Government for their use, and they are exempted from rateability because they occupy as the servants of the Crown, the Crown itself being considered the real occupier. Now, it may be said that this is a hardship on the parish, and it becomes more so if the exemption, on the ground of public good, be done away in other cases; but I will say nothing more about the Crown property. With regard to charities, the benefits they confer more than make up for any little loss they inflict on the parishes; and so with hospitals, the direct benefit they give to the parishes more than compensates for any rates which the parishes might obtain. If those charities, such as hospitals and infirmaries, are not to be exempted, while they take in poor people from the parishes, the time may come when it will be necessary for the trustees or managers to say, "We are paying rates, and you must pay us for your paupers, if they come into our hospitals and infirmaries." Under the circumstances I have pointed out, I believe that legislation upon the subject is necessary to prevent litigation, if the judgment of the House of Lords in the Mersey Dock case is not conclusive on the point; and, if it is conclusive, then legislation is equally necessary, in order to do away with the statutable exemptions to which I have directed the attention of the House, and which ought not to exist, as they never would have been granted except on the supposition that Lord Mansfield's and the subsequent decisions were in force. I will, in conclusion, ask the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Poor Law Board, Whether the rating placed on these institutions, to which I have referred, has been placed upon them at the instance of the Poor Law Board; whether the Poor Law Board, subsequently to the decision of last year, sent out any instructions to parochial officers, calling upon them to rate those charitable institutions; if so, whether they have any objection to lay those instructions upon the table of the House; whether they are prepared to legislate with a view of putting rating generally on a fairer footing, and of applying some better principle than that of a hypothetical tenancy; and lastly, are they prepared to exempt charities; and, if not, are they prepared to repeal the statutory exemptions to which I have referred in the course of my speech?
MR. BAZLEYsaid, he hoped that full consideration would be given to the points submitted to the House in the statement
990
just made by the hon. Member. He quite concurred with the hon. Member, that the rating of these institutions had a chilling and prejudicial effect on the voluntary principle of charity which prevailed in this country. To illustrate the probable operation of the law as it stood under the late decision, he might instance the case of certain charities in Manchester rated at the value of £6,000 yearly, which would become liable to local taxation to the amount of £1,000; a result which would be regarded with anything but satisfaction by the inhabitants of Manchester. That was a large sum to deprive charitable institutions of, when it was recollected that of the 50,000 children wandering about the streets of that city they had succeeded solely by voluntary efforts of charity in rescuing 20,000 from ignorance and crime. He hoped the Government would give the matter their serious consideration, and that they would not thus check the efforts of charity which was doing so much to subdue crime.
MR. LOCKEdesired, in consequence of the observations of the hon. Member for Manchester (Mr. Bazley), to state that a very different opinion on the subject was entertained a few years back. When the late Mr. Sotheron Estcourt was President of the Poor Law Board, and the hon. Gentleman the Member for the University of Oxford (Mr. Gathorne Hardy) was Under Secretary of the Home Department, a Committee was appointed to inquire into the propriety of rating Government and other [public property. At his (Mr. Locke's) suggestion, the inquiry was extended to all public property; and the Committee, which was presided over by the late Mr. Wilson, agreed to a Report which recommended that not only Government property, but the property of all public institutions should be rated. Upon that recommendation Mr. Sotheron Estcourt introduced a Bill for the purpose of rating all public property whatever, including Government property, hospitals, and every description of place throughout the country. That was considered a right and just principle. It was obvious that if they exempted a public building or hospital, the inhabitants of the parish in which it was must pay a larger proportion of rates. The word "occupy" had been twisted and turned about for many generations. At last a decision in regard to the rating of hospitals had been given by Lord West-bury, who certainly was in the habit of

991
looking things full in the face. That eminent man was very much like Lord Abinger, who frequently remarked that he would throw on one side all the decisions of the Courts of Law, and that he would judge for himself. Lord Abinger, on many occasions, set aside a number of decisions, and his judgments were subsequently discovered to be perfectly correct; and there was no doubt that the decision of Lord Westbury would be found equally right. The Governors of the Mersey Docks appeared to be a class of people who derived no benefit from them. They had borrowed a large sum of money, and out of the tolls levied on vessels entering the docks the interest on the loan was paid. It was evident that, where buildings in a parish were exempt from paying rates, those levied upon the other houses must be higher than they would be if there were no exemption. This was the principle laid down by the Government of Lord Derby; and he would ask his right hon. Friend the President of the Poor Law Board whether some amendment in the law with regard to this matter was not required. Should legislative proceedings be taken, he would press upon the Government the advisability of considering not only the poor people in the hospitals, but the poor people out of them. Bethlehem Hospital, alluded to by the hon. Member for Oxford, was allowed to go scot free. When the matter came before the Court of Quarter Sessions for Surrey, he was then practising at those sessions; but ever since the exemption of that institution from liability to pay rates, a large number of people in the parish in which it was situated had been unceasing in their complaints of the injustice which it occasioned. This was a point which ought to be considered; and he had made these observations in order that both sides of the question should be brought under the notice of his right hon. Friend the President of the Poor Law Board.
MR. C. P. VILLIERSsaid, that the apology of the hon. Member for the University of Oxford (Mr. Gathorne Hardy) for having entered further into the subject under discussion than he had intended was unnecessary. But he might complain a little of the hon. Member's procedure. Not quite understanding the nature of his Question and the course he intended to pursue, he (Mr. Villiers) had asked him whether it was his intention to impugn the judgment lately given in the
992
House of Lords, and deal with the argument in that case; because, had he understood that this was his determination, not having had the opportunity of seeing that judgment, he would have asked him to postpone the Question till a future night. The House, however, had heard the hon. Member, who had come well prepared with his subject, and taken issue with the House of Lords in the judgment it had pronounced. [Mr. GATHORNE HARDY: I stated distinctly that I agreed with it.] The agreement was rather extraordinary, because the hon. Member had only referred to the single Judge who differed from the House of Lords, and he had also to a certain extent impugned their judgment; for he said that its results must be unjust and would operate inequitably. The hon. Gentleman had not, however, mentioned that the House of Lords in this matter sought the assistance of the Judges—a course but rarely adopted—and that it was after hearing their opinions—united, with one exception—that the House of Lords unanimously confirmed the judgment now impugned, or rather complained of, by the hon. Member. He would therefore ask the House to view this case as one that had been decided by the House of Lords, as one that had already been decided in the courts of justice, where the Judges had refused to decide against the judgment of the House of Lords. It was what was termed a legislative exposition of the statute of Elizabeth, at once putting an end to all the questions on this subject that had been so frequently raised before the courts. But this was not all that he had to complain of. The hon. Member had stated that the House of Lords had reversed the current of decision and of all the judgments of previous authorities for more than a century—an assertion which was not correct as to the period of time. If the hon. Gentleman will refer to that judgment he will find that all the decisions during that period of time had been reviewed and were found to be exceedingly conflicting. Until this judgment was delivered the question as to whether charitable institutions should be called upon to pay rates had never been settled. Looking at the enormous evil that arose from the uncertainty of the law, and the injustice perpetrated by the exemptions of certain premises from the liability to pay rates, so far from the introduction of the subject to the highest court of the country being a misfortune, as the hon. Gentleman would seem to imply,

993
he (Mr. Villiers) believed that great convenience and great advantage had resulted therefrom. It was very important that the House should understand, not that the law was unjust, and that fresh legislation was requisite, but that there had been a misconstruction of the law, and that all exemptions were but privileges and favours. And this decision of the House of Lords was in conformity with the opinions expressed by all the highest authorities during a century. The Judges had never slighted Lord Mansfield's authority; they had always treated it with the greatest respect. Lord Ellenborough, Lord Ten-terden, Chief Justice Tindal, and Lord Campbell, always referred to the opinion of Lord Mansfield with deference, but at the same time they disagreed with his decision. He did not say that those learned Judges had given judgments in opposition to that of Lord Mansfield; but had they been called upon for their opinion it would have been different from that of Lord Mansfield. The hon. Member now asked the Government whether any orders had been issued by the Poor Law Board directing parish officers to rate buildings used for charitable purposes. To his (Mr. Villiers') knowledge no such instructions had been sent; but questions had been sent to the Poor Law Board respecting the judgment of the House of Lords; and the answer given by the legal adviser of the Board was that nothing could be more clear, conclusive, and satisfactory, and that property which had hitherto been exempt would be exempt no longer. He did not think that the hon. Member had made out any case in favour of legislative exemption. Those institutions were endowed, and the endowments frequently assumed the form of landed property. Now, there was no reason why this should be exempted more than any other landed property. The hon. Member stated that, in consequence of the practical operation of the decisions of the courts, and the exemption of these institutions, other societies had been relieved from their burdens by statutory exemption; but he did not know from what source the hon. Member obtained his information. It certainly could not be from the debates which had taken place in that House. A few years ago a proposition was made, at the early establishment of literary societies, Athenaeums, and mechanics' institutes, that these societies should not be made liable to the rates, but he did not think
994
that the hon. Member would find in the debates on the subject any reference to charitable institutions. The statutory exemption which was then granted was, however, not extended when application was subsequently made to the House, because such an extension was objected to upon principle. He would mention another consideration which he thought ought to weigh with the House. A few years ago Committees were appointed in both Houses of Parliament to inquire into this matter, and those Committees were composed, as would be seen by reference, of the highest in authority, and the most respectable Members of both Houses of Parliament. Both Committees strongly recommended the abolition of all exemptions; and this view was especially insisted upon by the Committee, composed of Members of the House of Commons, which was presided over by the late Sir George Lewis. They regarded those exemptions as faulty in principle, as tending to litigation, and as bearing unfairly upon the ratepayers in general. Nothing, in fact, could be more clear or distinct than the decision of both Committees. The question was whether, now all this uncertainty and expense of litigation, and all this injustice towards the ratepayers were about to cease in consequence of the decision of the House of Lords, it would be wise to propose to the House of Commons the reversal of a decision which was likely to be attended with such satisfactory results. Nothing could be more comprehensive than the statute which had been referred to. In answer, therefore, to the Question of the hon. Gentleman, he might say that the Government had not at present any intention of introducing any measure upon the subject. It could not be done without creating great confusion and doing much injustice; and if there were cases such as the hon. Member had referred to that evening, it would be better if the hon. Gentleman sought relief from the State or from the House in another form, instead of attempting to do so by a course which had been shown to give rise to much injury and injustice.

INADEQUACY OF OUR NEUTRALITY LAW.—OBSERVATIONS.
MR. LABOUCHERErose to call the attention of the House to the inadequacy of our Neutrality Law to enable us to fulfil our International obligations to wards Foreign countries, and said, that having

995
passed ten or twelve years in the diplomatic service, he had given some consideration to the subject of International Law, and he-believed that from defects and inefficiency our existing Neutrality Law was not only fraught with future danger to ourselves, but was calculated to prevent us from acting justly towards our allies. The unfriendly feeling which to so large an extent existed in the "United States towards this country owed its origin chiefly to the losses which American commerce had suffered, arising, as the Americans believed, from the inadequacy of our Neutrality Law; and this ill-feeling he believed to be the groundwork of that tacit sympathy with Fenianism which existed in the States of that country. Naturally irritated at the losses inflicted by Confederate cruisers, the American Government, while the war was yet going on, had several times called upon Her Majesty's Ministers to propose an alteration in the law. That demand was refused, and refused, he believed, rightly, because it would not have been consistent with absolute impartiality between the two belligerents to alter a law which, under the then existing circumstances, affected only one of them. Moreover, Her Majesty's Ministers would probably only have made matters worse by asking Parliament to alter the law; because he believed that, owing to the strong Confederate feeling which then existed, the House of Commons would have refused to make the required alteration. There was also a strong objection always latent in the minds of Englishmen to do anything which savoured of yielding to the bidding of a foreign Power, especially when the request was made in language rather menacing than conciliatory. But the circumstances were now widely different. The war was now over, and the passions which that conflict had aroused had had time to subside. They had refused, standing more on technical right than acting on a sound and generous policy, to consider the claims made by America for compensation, or to refer those claims to arbitration; and he believed that the period had now arrived when a law productive of so much evil ought to be revised, not only in the interests of this country, but also with the view of promoting international morality. Whatever might once have been the state of public law in Europe, there was now an international obligation laid upon every State to prevent its subjects from engaging in acts of hostility against any Power with
996
which their own Government were on terms of neutrality; and it was an act of hostility to fit out in a neutral State a ship to prey upon the commerce of a nation with which the Government was at peace. This was not always the law, because the subjects of a State at peace used formerly to enter in great numbers the service of foreign Powers engaged in war; but that state of things had disappeared with the notion that war was the normal condition of the human race. He knew that there were gentlemen who believed that there was no difference between a gun and a ship, and that trading in both ought either to be equally forbidden or to be equally allowed. Intrinsically, perhaps, there might be no difference if both were delivered at the port of a belligerent. The distinction lay in the place of delivery. Supplying arms to a belligerent Power could not be constituted an act of hostility until the delivery had been effected at the port of the belligerent Power; but directly a ship armed and equipped for the purpose of preying upon the commerce of a nation with which we were at peace left our ports, its sailing might be regarded as an act of hostility. As a belligerent Power could not, of course, prevent the sailing of such a ship from a neutral port, international obligations had imposed upon neutral nations themselves the necessity of restraining their subjects from infringing them. That was the doctrine which usually obtained among nations at the present time. At all events, it was the doctrine to which both English and American statesmen had pledged their respective countries. He did not think it would be difficult to show that this was the case. For instance, when in 1793 we asked the United States to prevent vessels of war leaving their ports for the purpose of cruising under the French flag against our commerce, we based our demands upon international obligation. And, again, in the discussion which took place before the passing of our Foreign Enlistment Act, in 1819, Lord Castlereagh used the following words:—
"It is a duty which we owe to Spain and to our own honour, while we profess to be at peace with her, not to allow ships of war to be equipped in our ports, or allow armaments to sail from them against her."
In America the same doctrine has been always held. General Washington's Proclamation, enjoining neutrality to American subjects, preceded the passing of the

997
Neutrality Law through Congress, and when certain persons were prosecuted for having infringed that Proclamation, and pleaded that they had not violated the law of the land, they were told by the Judge who tried them that they had violated a law which had been in force long before the existence of the United States. The municipal law of neutrality both of America and of England was, in fact, only an embodiment of the international obligation. The law proceeded from the obligation, and not the obligation from the law. Now, how had we fulfilled this undoubted obligation during the last few years? He would only allude to one or two cases in order to point out where, in his opinion, our law was defective. The incidents of the escape and career of the Alabama were known to every hon. Gentleman in that House. In the report of the Board of Customs it was admitted that the American Consul in Liverpool had frequently warned them of the destination of that vessel, and of the hostile purposes to which she was to be devoted; but they stated that they were unable to act because they possessed no legal evidence as to its destination. Now, if our law had been the same as that of the United States, the Alabama would never have quitted our shores, for in the United States the Executive were empowered to order a precautionary embargo in cases of suspicion, even when there might not be sufficient evidence of the real character of the vessel to render a conviction probable. The case of the Florida was very similar to that of the Alabama. The Attorney General, in alluding to the action of the authorities of Nassau in that case, made use of these words—
"We may have reason to believe it to be true [meaning the alleged destination of the vessel], but to say that we are to act upon strong suspicion against another State on certain facts which have never been judicially established, is a proposition not to be accepted without grave consideration."
Now, these two vessels having escaped from our jurisdiction, and having been commissioned on the high seas as ships of war, had afterwards put into our ports, where they were received in every respect like ordinary vessels of war. The Attorney General, indeed, stated that to make a difference between them and other vessels of war would be a preposterous thing. Earl Russell, however, alluding to the two ships, said that they were a scandal and
998
almost a reproach to English law. The inefficiency of the present law more clearly appeared from the course adopted by Her Majesty's Government in the case of the steam rams built by Messrs. Laird. There was no reasonable person, except perhaps the builder, who doubted for one moment that those vessels were to be paid for out of funds provided either directly or indirectly by the Confederate Government, and that they were intended to act as Confederate ships of war; yet so vague, loose, and inefficient was our law that the Government was obliged at the last moment to compromise the matter by purchasing the rams. The phraseology of the statute was altogether unfitted to be applied to the inventions of late years; and, indeed, it was so framed that it invited evasion. The Courts of Law, too, had so involved such questions as, "What is fitting out?" and, "What are vessels of war?" that no layman could venture to offer an opinion on those and similar subjects. If half-a-dozen lawyers were taken at random, and asked whether, under the words of the Act, a steam ram intended for service against a neutral Power might quit our shores, there would, he believed, be great diversity in their opinions. Then there was one case which the law never contemplated—namely, a vessel of war being sent out piecemeal from our ports, the ship from one port, the guns from a second, and the ammunition from a third, and being put together on the high seas. Did not these things show that our law was inefficient to prevent English subjects from engaging in hostilities against foreign countries? Earl Russell had said that the law was a scandal and a reproach; while the United States had stated that they had lost millions through its inefficiency. He submitted to the House that the obligation was clear, and that the non-fulfilment of the obligation was equally clear. Ought we not, then, to alter the law? Was it consistent with our true policy to reply to those who suffered from its operation simply by making counter-accusations r The country which in the long run would suffer most from the present state of the law would be England herself, because she had the largest carrying trade. Suppose we were to go to war with Paraguay, which had no seaboard at all, what would be the consequence? Why, swift gunboats would issue from almost every port of the United States in order to prey upon our commerce, and the rate

999
of insurance of British vessels would become so high that no merchant would ship his goods in an English bottom. Even supposing, however, that we never went to war, it might happen that two other great countries—such as France and the United States, for example—might at some time or other be engaged in hostilities against each other. In such an event much angry feeling would arise, many angry despatches would be written, and accusations and counter-accusations would be bandied from one side to the other, and very possibly we ourselves should be dragged into the war. Now, he could hardly venture to recommend to the Government any particular course of policy; but he thought that if a provision were introduced into our law similar to that which existed in the United States, permitting the Government to make precautionary arrests in cases of suspicion, that would do much to strengthen the law, and put us in a better position in regard to foreign Powers. He was, however, of opinion that privateering would never be altogether crushed out until by an exchange of diplomatic notes or by some conference all the great maritime Powers were induced to make a declaration on the subject like that of the Treaty of Paris. The wings of future Floridas and Alabamas would then be effectually clipped, and the good relations which ought to subsist between nations would no longer be at the mercy of shipowners or speculators.
MR. ROEBUCKsaid, he had hoped that our diplomatic body abroad were better informed on International Law than now appeared from the speech of the hon. Member. First of all, the hon. Member told the House that the morality of Europe had changed, and that the citizens and subjects of one State were not allowed to become warlike instruments in another. Had the hon. Member never heard of the Federal army? Was not that army composed to a large extent of British subjects? Was it not the fact that a very large number of Irishmen went to America, enrolled themselves in that army, and fought for the Federal cause, and had now returned, calling themselves American officers and appearing as Fenians in Dublin? The next statement the hon. Member made was that the United States law allowed the Executive to put their hands on and pounce on ships building, on arms and equipments, without sufficient evidence. He denied that altogether.
MR. LABOUCHERE: Has the hon. and learned Gentleman ever heard of the case of the ship Maori?
MR. ROEBUCKsaid, he denied the statement of the hon. Gentleman as a matter of law. He knew that the Attorney General stepped in and prevented certain rams built by Messrs. Laird from going to the assistance of the Confederate States; but there was no difference between the law of England and America as to the treatment of neutral States. Now, he wished to know how it was possible to prevent such transactions as those that had been referred to. The hon. Member said that ships of war were sent out piecemeal, the body of the vessel from one port, the equipment and guns from another, and the powder from another; and he (Mr. Roebuck) would ask how it was possible, except on evidence, clear, definite, and indisputable, for the Executive in a constitutional country like this to put their hands on a transaction of that kind? The hon. Member had alluded to the possibility of England being involved in a war at some time or other. Well, we had incurred that danger before, and we must incur it again. The Executive ought to be warned against taking upon itself such dangerous powers as those suggested by the hon. Member. England depended on her mercantile enterprize and on her power to supply other countries with whatever they required, whether it was to build ships, to make gunpowder, or to cast cannon for them; and so did the United States. The whole civilized world did the same thing. And he would recommend to our Government not to attempt to acquire more power in that matter than they at present possessed. They had power enough to prevent the occurrence of any great mischief, and they ought not to endanger the security of our great merchants and artificers by any new proceeding. He confessed that he did not like a discussion of that sort upon an occasion like the present. They should recollect that a great and gallant people had recently made a great stand in defence of what they thought were their national rights, and that gallant people had suffered cruelly from the struggle which ensued. Things had been done in the course of the American contest that would have disgraced Tilly or Wallenstein; and the House was now asked to call upon the Government to take steps that would in some way throw discredit upon that gal-

1001
lant people. He did not deny that all his sympathies were in favour of the Southern States of America. The Federal army was made up of men very much like Dugald Dalgetty. They had conquered—he wished them joy of their conquest; but they were not yet a re-united people, and he hoped they would not become one.
MR. LAINGsaid, he was reluctant for keep the House from business; but as a question of that great importance had been raised he should be sorry that the discussion should terminate without any expression having been given to an idea which he knew to be widely entertained in commercial circles with respect to the only satisfactory mode of solving the difficulty. He believed that the only satisfactory settlement of the question would be found in an agreement on the part of the civilized nations of the world that all private property at sea should be placed upon the same footing as private property on land. The rule with regard to private property on land was clear, distinct, and definite; it was that it should not be subject to capture and destruction unless for bond fide belligerent operations. A difficulty might, of course, arise in the interpretation of that rule—it would practically be found difficult to draw the precise line; but the principle was clearly directed against the arbitrary and wanton destruction of private property. In what respect did the capture of private property at sea differ from the capture of private property on land? Why should a captain at sea receive bounty and promotion for the capture of private property while a colonel on land would be cashiered for a corresponding exploit? It should be recollected that the principle to which he then referred had been advocated by the Government of the United States at the Congress of Paris; but our Government then declined to accede to the proposal, and had thus lost, as he thought most injudiciously, the opportunity of establishing a rule which would have been of the utmost value to this country. There could be no doubt that after what had passed during the late contest in America, we should be at the mercy of any maritime Power with which we might enter into war. It would be impossible for us to engage in such a war without exposing our great mercantile marine to destruction. The operations of the Alabama had caused one-third of the whole tonnage of New York to be transferred to foreign flags; and what, he would
1002
ask, would be our position with 100 Alabamas issuing from a variety of ports to prey upon our commerce? The whole of our maritime commerce would be transferred to the flags of insignificant neutral States, such as Belgium, Holland, Norway, and Sweden, under which alone it could be safely carried on. Considering the immense interests which we had at stake in that matter, he hoped that Her Majesty's Government would turn their attention to the question for the purpose of seeing whether it would not be possible to repair the great mistake we had committed at the Congress of Paris, and, if that were not possible, for the purpose of establishing by some other means a new principle worthy of the civilization of the modern world.
MR. SANDFORDsaid, that the hon. Gentleman who had just addressed the House had stated that private property on land was exempted from the ravages of war. But he (Mr. Sandford) wanted to know whether the hon. Gentleman had read nothing of Sherman's march, or of the devastations committed by Sheridan during the recent contest in America? Bid he believe that private property on land had been respected by those officers? Why, a system of destruction of private property had been carried on by the Federal generals, which was, he believed, unparalleled in the previous history of the world. But he thought that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Windsor (Mr. Labouchere) was justified in bringing the subject under the notice of the House, because it was somewhat of a scandal that our Neutrality Laws should remain in their present position. What could be worse than our Foreign Enlistment Act? The Judges of the land were divided in their interpretation of that Act; and as the case at present stood, the decision of the Court of Exchequer was opposed to the act of the Government and of the Attorney General. Under these circumstances, it appeared to him that Her Majesty's Government should have announced, in the Speech from the Throne, some intention on their part of introducing a measure for the purpose of making the law upon this subject clear and definite. He believed that most people were of opinion that the law had been somewhat strained when the vessels referred to were seized by the Government; and he thought that the law ought to be placed in such a position that it should not be strained by any

1003
Government, in order to enable them to fulfil their international obligations. But what he should prefer to any mere action on the part of Her Majesty's Government, would be to see some International Congress summoned, at which the great maritime Powers might agree upon some common principle which they might afterwards embody in their municipal legislation. If any measure of that kind had been proposed during the late struggle, he should have offered to it the most determined opposition, because he thought it would be derogatory to the integrity of England to allow it to be supposed that she had altered her laws under the menaces of a foreign State, but no such objection could be made to our now taking up that subject; England did not fear Chili or Peru, or even Spain, and he believed that the present moment was most favourable for considering the question, for the American Government were at present showing an intention of acting fairly, honourably, and justly in its dealings with foreign Powers. He thought that the papers which had been laid before that House, and before the French Chambers, clearly indicated that Mr. Johnson, the President of the United States, was most anxious to fulfil the international obligations of that country; and as he (Mr. Sandford) had never been a partizan of Mr. Johnson, he was only too happy to take that opportunity of offering him the humble meed of his praise. Mr. Johnson had disappointed alike the prophecies of his enemies and the hopes of his friends, and he was now pursuing a course calculated to conciliate—if anything could conciliate—the unhappy differences which prevailed among his countrymen. He (Mr. Sandford) hoped that Her Majesty's Government would give some assurance that they intended to take that question in hand; and if they neglected to do so he thought it would be the duty of some private Member to force them to enter upon that course by some clear and definite Resolution.
MR. SHAW-LEFEVREsaid, he could not acquiesce in the view of the hon. Member for Maldon (Mr. Sandford) that a time of war was not proper for the consideration of these questions. At all events, they had usually been taken up in time of war. Our own Foreign Enlistment Act had been passed during the war between Spain and her colonies, and the United States had twice altered their Enlistment Act during the same war. The hon. and
1004
learned Member for Sheffield (Mr. Roebuck) said that there was no difference between the laws of the United States on this subject and our own. Now that was not so. There was a difference, and that difference had been repeatedly pointed out during the late war. In the year 1817, at the instance of Spain, backed by the remonstrances of this country, the United States altered the statute which had been referred to, and two important clauses were put in it, which were not to be found in our Act. The first provided that the owner of a vessel sailing out of the ports of the United States, and armed in whole or in part, should enter into bonds to the United States Government prior to clearing, that the said vessel should not be employed in hostilities. And the second clause empowered the officers of Customs of the United States to detain vessels manifestly built for warlike purposes, and whose cargo principally consisted of arms and munitions of war. He admitted that, under the latter clause, we could not have seized the Alabama. But if the hon. and learned Member referred to the history of the United States to see what was the 1 cause of that statute being passed, he would find that it was in order to prevent the evasion of their Foreign Enlistment Act. The schemes for eluding its provisions were very different from those which were employed in our own case. In America vessels went out as merchantmen, but they carried arms as cargo, and when they got outside the jurisdiction of the United States, they took the arms from below, mounted the guns, hoisted the flag of the insurgent Republic, and sailed forth as privateers. He quite admitted that there was very considerable difference between such cases as those and what had taken place here. The Confederate Government sent their agents over here early in the war, and directed them to fit out privateers. These agents, as he happened to know, took the very best legal advice. The able lawyers whom they consulted, told them that it would be of no use whatever to send out vessels of war completely armed and manned; but if they sent out a vessel from one port, and another from another or the same port carrying its guns and men, and if they met on the high seas out of our jurisdiction, then the whole enter-prize might be managed in that way, and our laws evaded. Well, the enterprize did succeed, and in this way there was done indirectly that which, if done directly, our laws would have prevented

1005
or punished. Following the example of the Americans we ought, he thought, to have altered our Foreign Enlistment Act, because it had proved to be only a delusion and a snare. The subject was last brought before the House in the debate on the Georgia, by the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. T. Baring). It was the last occasion on which Mr. Cobden spoke in that House. The Government, through the Attorney General, refused either to alter the Foreign Enlistment Act, or to prevent the entry of those vessels into our ports. He refused, on the ground, first, that the Foreign Enlistment Act was sufficient, and secondly, if not sufficient that that was not the time to alter it. Subsequent events showed how very ill-advised that decision was, because at that very time the Shenandoah was being fitted out in our ports. The Shenandoah was fitted out in the port of London, and a vessel called the Laurel was sent out from another port to meet her on the high seas. There was not the slightest evidence produced to show for what the Shenandoah was intended. Mr. Adams did not know of it. Persons concerned in affairs of this kind conceal their doings by every possible means. When these two vessels got to Madeira they sailed to a desert island, called Desertas, and there in Portuguese waters, but still, he believed, utterly unknown to the Portuguese, they transferred the armament from the Laurel to the Shenandoah. The men were mustered on deck, and the captain said to them, "I don't intend to fight. Anyone can see this vessel was not made for fighting. I intend to run away rather than fight. My orders are to destroy the Federal commerce by destroying, as far as I can, the vessels that carry it." In pursuance of those instructions the Shenandoah burnt all the vessels it could find on its way to Melbourne. When it got there it was hospitably received by the authorities, and remained for something like three weeks. Repairs were executed, and eventually it sailed thence, having been enabled in the meantime to enlist some fifty or sixty men in addition to the crew it had already. Then it sailed to the Arctic Seas, burning on its way all the whaling vessels which it found, and putting the crews on shore among the savages. It then proceeded to Behring's Straits, where, long after the war was in point of fact over, it destroyed fourteen whaling vessels. The effect of that was to more than double the price of sperm oil—thus, by the way, affording an illus-
1006
tration of a law to which the hon. Member for Westminster (Mr. J. Stuart Mill) had called attention. Half the whalers were destroyed, and the price of sperm oil was more than doubled; the consequence of which was, as we were the chief consumers of sperm oil, the loss fell upon this country. The whalers themselves, having assured one another, did not realize the loss. Those who had sperm oil got more than double price, and those who had not were assured against loss. He happened to be in a shop the other day, when a clergyman came in to buy some sperm oil for a magic lantern for his school children. When he was told the price was more than double, he said, "Well then I cannot buy it, and my children must go without the magic lantern." The school children went without their night's amusement because of the burning of these whalers, which was the result of the inefficiency of our Foreign Enlistment Act. Now the question which remained was, what were we to do? Unless we acted in concert with foreign nations we could do little. Suppose we altered the Act as hon. Members had recommended, in what position should we be should we unfortunately be at war on some future occasion. Other nations would not take our law from our Foreign Enlistment Act, but rather from our conduct when we were neutral. And therefore, although he should like to see the Act altered, there would be no use in doing so unless we did it in concert with other nations, and especially the United States. He would rather not enter into the subject of our relations with the United States, because it involved questions with regard to claims which he would prefer not to deal with. At the same time, he hoped that the Government, notwithstanding the way in which they had refused to act, would entertain this question in view of the enormous importance to this country of having this law altered, and International Law on the subject clearly laid down. The hon. Member for the Wick Burghs (Mr. Laing) had adverted to the proposal entertained by the Congress of Paris for exempting private property on the high seas from capture; but one of the most important results of that Congress was the agreement that in all differences between two countries there should be arbitration. But it was on that very basis of arbitration that our Government absolutely refused to treat. He therefore hoped the Government would consider this question in view of its ex-

1007
treme importance. The view of the question taken by intelligent Americans was well expressed in the recent Message of the President to Congress. The President said—
"The United States did not present the subject as an impeachment of the good faith of a Power which was professing the most friendly dispositions, but as involving questions of public law, of which the settlement is essential to the peace of nations; and, though pecuniary reparation to their injured citizens would have followed incidentally on a decision against Great Britain, such compensation was not their primary object. They had a higher motive, and it was in the interests of peace and justice to establish important principles of International Law. The correspondence will be placed before you. The ground on which the British Minister rests his justification is substantially, that the municipal law of a nation, and the domestic interpretations of that law, are the measure of its duty as a neutral, and I feel bound to declare my opinion, before you and before the world, that that justification cannot be sustained before the tribunal of nations.
He ventured to urge on the attention of Government the desirability of doing something to get rid of questions which, if they were allowed to remain open, might become a perpetual source of ill-feeling between England and America. The Government, he trusted, would not allow the present opportunity to pass by of satisfactorily solving a question which had already proved a source of such danger and difficulty. If they did, events might arise which would hereafter justify some one in saying to the Government—
"This might have been prevented, and made whole,
With very easy arguments of love;
Which now the manage of two kingdoms must
With fearful bloody issue arbitrate."
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: Sir, I admit that the Question now before the House has been discussed in a temperate manner; and so far, whatever opinions hon. Members may have formed, I do not apprehend that any public disadvantage will arise from the discussion. The subject is beyond all doubt one of the greatest importance, and at the same time of no slight difficulty. It is of the greatest importance that the House should bear in mind what were the exact facts of the various cases bearing on the question which occurred during the recent unhappy war in America. The hon. Member for Windsor (Mr. Labouchere) is slightly in error when he says that the English Government was several times requested by the Government of the United States to amend the Foreign Enlistment Act; in fact, the very reverse of that statement would be nearer to
1008
the truth. It should be remembered that at an early period of the war the Government of this country, foreseeing that important questions of law might arise during the progress of the war, suggested to the American Government that the Foreign Enlistment Acts of both countries should be revised, and any amendments that might be thought necessary made in them. What was the answer made by the American Government to this overture of ours? Why, to use a homely expression, they threw cold water on it. They said that they had no objection to enter into the consideration of that question, if our Government desired it; but, for their own part, they were of opinion that their Foreign Enlistment Act required no amendment, and was perfectly sufficient for its purpose. Our Government could have no wish to introduce unnecessarily a measure which might not commend itself to the general opinion of the public; and I ask the House what position the Government would have been' placed in if, after the receipt of such an answer as that, they had asked Parliament to add more stringent provisions to the Foreign Enlistment Act? The first question asked in the House would be, whether we had received any intimation from the American Government that it was, in their judgment, necessary or desirable to make corresponding changes in their own Foreign Enlistment Act. Parliament would, of course, have seen the correspondence on the subject, and would have seen that the Government of the United States saw no necessity for any alteration in their law. Then, of course, the question would have been asked whether the law of the United States was substantially different from our own, or whether our law was inferior in efficiency to the law of the United States; for if it was not, and if the United States Government thought their own law adequate, Parliament would scarcely have entertained the idea of altering it. Well, then, we must look into the law of the United States; and here I would observe that the view of it taken by the hon. Member for Windsor was hardly accurate. The hon. Member appears to think that the American Foreign Enlistment Act is far more stringent than that in force in this country. The hon. and learned Member for Sheffield (Mr. Roebuck) has already said that the views of the hon. Member were not quite accurate, and I must confirm that statement. Indeed, the hon. Member for Reading (Mr. Shaw-Lefevre), who has spoken to-night with

1009
his usual candour and ability, does not himself concur in the views of the Member for Windsor on that subject. The two sections which are supposed to bear out the opinion that the American law compels a stricter neutrality than our own, are the 10th and 11th sections of the Act of Congress passed in 1818. But those sections are applicable only to armed vessels, and ships manifestly built for warlike purposes, of which the cargo principally consists of arms and munitions of war—with which our own Act also is practically adequate to deal; and if exactly similar provisions had been contained in our Act they would have been inapplicable to such ships as the Alabama, the Florida, the Georgia, and the Shenandoah, none of which when they left this country were armed, or had any cargo on board consisting of arms or munitions of war. And I may ask when, in point of fact, has an armed ship or vessel been permitted to sail out of an English port to attack the commerce of the United States? No such occurrence has taken place. Of those two sections, the first enables security to be taken from
"The owners of every armed ship or vessel, sailing out of the ports of the United States, belonging wholly or in part to citizens thereof."
The other section authorizes the detention
"Of any vessel manifestly built for warlike purposes of which the cargo shall principally consist of arms and munitions of war."
Our Foreign Enlistment Act also strikes at such vessels, though by provisions of a different character; and no vessel of which it could be alleged that she was manifestly built for warlike purposes, and that her cargo mainly consisted of munitions of war, has been allowed to leave an English port. The late Lord Chancellor advised the Government, and so the United States were told, that our law was sufficient to deal with cases of that description. Under such circumstances, it was considered to be our duty to make the experiment, to wait and see whether the Foreign Enlistment Act would answer the purposes for which it was enacted, before asking Parliament to pass a new law on the subject—a course which would only have increased the difficulties of the situation if the proposition was not adopted—and the negotiation so coldly met fell to the ground. If we had persevered in that negotiation and failed it might have placed the relations between the United
1010
States and this country in a worse position then they were in, while we merely endeavoured to put in force the law as it stood, I will now state to the House what were the practical results of the course so taken by the Government. The information which might have justified the seizure of the Alabama reached the Government so late, that unfortunately we were not able to detain that vessel. But other vessels were afterwards detained. Admitting; that our law is not perfect, still I must say that the Government were able, even by means of this imperfect instrument, to do more towards the suppression of armaments against the United States, than the United States were in former times able to do with their law. During the war of the States of South America against Spain the agents of the former Powers appeared, notwithstanding the exertions of the United States Government, to be able to set the law at defiance with impunity. A great number of armed vessels left ports of the United States to attack Spanish commerce, and in some instances actually returned into those ports with their prizes. Comparing what then took place there with what has taken place here under the recent circumstances, it is impossible not to see that the law of the United States then proved less efficacious than our own law. In the different breaches, or alleged breaches of the Foreign Enlistment Act which have taken place during the war, it will, I think, be seen that the Government did everything that lay in their power to secure the stringent carrying out of that Act. It is said that the Government were to blame for not being more prompt in their attempt to seize the Alabama. Most assuredly they acted with perfect good faith, and did not intentionally permit any delay beyond that which was necessary to enable them to make themselves masters of the evidence which would have justified her seizure. With regard to the Florida, she was not fitted out as a ship of war from this country, but at Mobile. With regard to the Alexandra, it is well known that she was twice seized—that the Judges in this country were divided in opinion on the question; and that at Nassau she was a second time acquitted. As to the steam rams, the Government did nothing illegal, as has been sometimes asserted. They gave notice to the builders that if they were removed from the Mersey in the way the Alabama had been removed they would be seized. They did afterwards seize them and

1011
were prepared to go into court with them. It is true that the Government thought proper to compromise those proceedings and to purchase the rams; and I must say that I think that the course then taken by the Government was a prudent one. If by any accident we had failed in a prosecution, and those ships had gained the seas, it is impossible to say what mischief such an occurrence might have caused in America, what passions might have been excited, and what risk might have been run in regard to the relations between this country and the United States. The Government seized those ships with the knowledge in their minds that the purpose for which they were intended was an illegal one; but, although they were in possession of evidence which they thought sufficient to entitle them to a verdict, it was not such as to perclude all chance of an opposite result. They, therefore, instead of proceeding to trial, paid, as the House knows, a large sum of money for those vessels in order to avoid all risk, and to prevent any cause of irritation between this country and the United States. The Government also seized the Pampero in the Clyde; and the fact is that in every instance—in every case with which even the United States Minister became acquainted, except that of the Alabama—Her Majesty's Government stopped the ships and prevented them from leaving this country. In the cases of the Georgia and the Shenandoah, it must be admitted that even Mr. Adams had not any information before those ships had left England. I have so far ventured to state the course taken by the Government, first, because I do hope that, when the aggravated feelings which arise from national calamities and national losses are allayed, our friends and neighbours on the other side of the Atlantic will be able to recognize in the conduct of Her Majesty's Government an honest and earnest desire throughout the war to maintain a strict neutrality, and to do their best to prevent any violation of the laws of this country. Last of all, I hold that our proceedings in this matter ought fairly to be measured by the standard of the success which the United States themselves met with, when endeavouring to enforce their own law under similar circumstances. Our success in preventing breaches of neutrality during the late war cannot be deemed slight or inconsiderable, if compared with that which attended the endeavours of the
1012
United States to prevent similar breaches of neutrality in former times. I will say only a very few words on a point put forward by the hon. Member for Reading (Mr. Shaw-Lefevre). He spoke in a manner which, I think, does him much credit. He spoke with a prudent reserve and with a due consideration for the true interests of the country, which certainly might not always be promoted by a free expression of all the opinions which hon. Members of this House may entertain. No one can appreciate more than I do the discretion of my hon. Friend, who in this case is, I am sure, actuated by those motives which I know actuate his mind on all occasions. The House must feel that in all cases where nations are concerned there are two principles which never must be lost sight of. One of these is that a nation must not compromise its own honour by allowing that there is a question of good faith to be submitted to arbitration when really there is none. It would be impossible to submit this case to an arbitrator without treating it as an open question, whether there had been a breach of faith and honour on the part of this country; because all must admit that if a nation has acted in good faith in such a case there can be no claim. Secondly, it cannot be denied that it would be a most dangerous precedent if any nation should hold itself responsible for evils which it could not prevent. To say that neutral nations should be responsible for all acts done by their subjects which the Governments of those nations cannot prevent, might, in many cases, be to throw on neutral nations a great part of the expense of maritime wars carried on by their neighbours. That is an assumption which cannot be admitted; and if there could be any case in which we should have good ground for adhering to those principles it must surely be when we are dealing with a great nation, itself of high honour and of good faith, which has always been most jealous in upholding its own Neutrality Laws, but which, to say the least, has not always been more successful in doing so than ourselves, and which on many occasions, over and over again, persistently and emphatically refused to recognize similar claims on the part of Portugal and Spain, and declined to submit those claims to arbitration. I think, with that example before us, we are well warranted in upholding these principles. But though I think we are entitled in this matter to take the same line which the United States took themselves, and though in my opinion we are

1013
entitled to hold that the refusal to entertain such a claim cannot be any just and abiding cause of displeasure on the part of the United States, believing as I do that we have solid grounds for that refusal; still, far be it from me to say that if the good feeling between the two nations only depended on money and not on a much more serious consideration, it might not be worth while to pay a very large sum rather than there should be any interruption of friendly feelings between this country and the United States. But this is not a question of money. Her Majesty's Government believe that a great principle of International Law and national honour is involved in this question, and it is upon that account, and not through any want of respect to a great nation, that we cannot admit the principle of those claims—a principle which might involve ourselves and all other nations, whatever may be our law, in endless claims and questions for all future time. Now, with regard to the future; almost every hon. Member who has addressed the House has felt the importance of dealing with this subject, not by ourselves, but in concert with other nations which have interests similar to our own. It would be, indeed, difficult—I do not say it would be impossible—to deal with it otherwise. Her Majesty's Government has been most desirous to consider this subject in friendly communication with the Government of the United States. I scarcely need remind the House that, as late as the 3rd of November last, Lord Russell wrote to Mr. Adams thus—
"It appears to me, I confess, that, as neither the law of the United States nor our own Foreign Enlistment Act have proved upon trial completely efficacious, it is worth consideration whether improvements may not be made in the statutes of both nations; so that, for the future, each Government may have in its own territory as much security as our free institutions will permit against those who act in defiance of the intention of the Sovereign, and evade the letter of its laws."
Her Majesty's Government, I am authorized to say, still continue of the same mind. They are still most desirous to consider this matter in friendly communication with the United States; and it could be only an unfriendly counsellor who would suggest to the Government of that country that the time is gone by when such questions could usefully be considered. I venture to say that a policy
1014
founded on such advice would be a wrong and shortsighted policy. If, by well considered Amendments, the laws of both countries could be made more effectual, they would be delivered from many difficulties whenever a war took place. At present the United States may be placed in a difficulty by the war in Mexico and the war in Chili; and clearly it would only be fair to consider recent experience, because it is only experience which shows what the weak points are in matters of this description. It is experience which tells us in what our laws are defective, and in what they require alteration and amendment. I venture to say that if the United States Government would accede to the suggestion of Earl Russell, and enter into a friendly consideration of this question, we are in a far better position to deal with it now than if we had dealt with it without the full experience of the late war. If we had attempted to legislate on the subject during the earlier part of that war, I am perfectly certain that in practice our amendments would have been very imperfect, perhaps they might have altogether failed. It might probably have turned out that in altering we had made things very little better, and that we had endeavoured to amend with no good result. But the experience of these last years has been such as to enable us now to become pretty well cognizant of the sound and the weak points of our own Foreign Enlistment Act, and if we could only obtain the co-operation of other nations equally interested as ourselves, I should not despair of arriving at a sound and satisfactory result. I think the House will be generally of opinion with Her Majesty's Government that the subject is one of great delicacy and very considerable difficulty, and that it is one on which we should not enter without serious consideration: and that it is most desirable, if it be possible, to enter on it in concurrence and in friendly communication with other nations who have only a right to the same protection from our laws which we ourselves receive from theirs.

RAILWAYS (IRELAND): METROPOLITAN RAILWAY SCHEMES.

  QUESTION.
  GENERAL DUNNE, in rising to put a question relative to the Report of the

  1015
  Railway Commissioners, said, that since he put his notice on the paper he had been told it should have been addressed, not to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but to the noble Lord the Member for King's Lynn (Lord Stanley), the President of the Commission on the Railways of the United Kingdom. As he understood the evidence had been closed in the case of Irish railways, he would venture to ask, Whether the Commissioners intended to make a Report on that part of the subject, or to wait until they had concluded their inquiry into the condition of all the railways in the kingdom, those of Great Britain as well as those of Ireland. Great anxiety existed in Ireland as to what the Government intended to do in regard to the railways of that country. The subject was brought under the notice of the House last Session by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Limerick (Mr. Monsell), now a Member of the Government, but who was not at present in the House owing to the necessity for his reelection on accepting office, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer on that occasion spoke as favourably as could reasonably be expected in respect to Irish railways. In that country, as in this, many of the railway undertakings were fair and flourishing, but many others were in a bankrupt condition, and very unreasonable hopes had perhaps in some instances been entertained of the action of the Government. In the case of Government wishing to purchase, with one exception, the Great Southern and Western, it had the right to do so at twenty years purchase, on an average of the last years profits, and of these there were none. The shareholders could scarcely expect they should be indemnified for the failure of their undertaking, but still some arrangement might be made where necessity existed. A meeting of the shareholders in Irish railways had lately been held in Dublin, and much anxiety existed to know whether any negotiations were likely to take place between the Government and the Irish railways. The hon. and gallant Gentleman concluded by asking the noble Lord the Member for King's Lynn, Whether the Commissioners appointed to inquire into the condition of Railways has concluded the inquiry with respect to Irish Railways; and, if such be the case, whether they will make a Report with regard to that kingdom at once, and without waiting to pursue the inquiry as to the Railways
  1016
  in Great Britain; and further, to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether, if that Report be made, he is prepared on the part of the Government to entertain the subject of Irish Railways?
  LORD STANLEY: My hon. and gallant Friend (General Dunne) has conferred more honour upon me than is my due in alluding to me as Chairman of the Commission now sitting to inquire into the Railways of the Kingdom. But I have the honour of a seat upon that Commission, and I shall be very glad, as far as it is in my power, to give him the explanation that he desires. The state of the case with regard to the Irish railways is this:—We have taken a large mass of information with regard to the Irish railway system in general. That evidence is at present, and has been for some time, in the hands of the Government, and, as far as we are concerned, there is not the slightest objection to its being made public. I believe we have obtained pretty nearly all the information that will be found material with regard to Irish railways; but we have not expressly decided on closing that branch of the inquiry, and if any communications are brought before us which we consider important we have not cut ourselves off from receiving them. The second part of my right hon. Friend's question was, "Do you intend to make a separate Report as regards Ireland without waiting for the result of the inquiry as regards Great Britain?" My answer to that is that we do not purpose at present to make any separate Report as regards Ireland. As to our reasons, I cannot, of course, undertake to speak for my colleagues on the Commission; but, speaking for myself, I think I can explain why that decision was come to. It would have been a very easy thing to make a separate Report on the Irish part of the Question, if that Report had been confined to a summary of facts, or even to recommendations dealing with local details. But the main questions referred to us are not questions of fact or of local detail. They are questions involving very large principles of administrative management. One, for instance, is a proposition which has been put forward in a very ingenious treatise, and which was discussed last year in this House—a proposition that the State should buy up all the property of the railway companies. Failing that, there is a proposition that the State should

  1017
  lend money on easy terms to embarrassed companies, or to all companies, with a view to induce them to reduce their rates. Failing that, again, there is a proposition that much larger powers should be given to the State, enabling the Board of Trade, or some other Department, to supervise the working of railway companies. Now, it seems to me impossible that these questions, looking at them from an administrative point of view, should be decided with respect to Ireland, unless the railway system of Great Britain be at the same time taken into account. If you were to deal with Ireland only, the matter would be within a very narrow compass. The whole Irish railway system is of very manageable extent. The total capital embarked in Irish railways does not much exceed £20,000,000, which is exactly the aggregate sum proposed to be expended on metropolitan lines within the present year by the Bills now before the House. But it would be a serious matter to pledge ourselves to recommend the adoption of any course with regard to Ireland, which, by a logical necessity, would involve the adoption of a similar course, not with reference merely to £20,000,000, but to the £400,000,000 invested in the railways of Great Britain. Of course, we can only look at this matter from the administrative point of view. There is no doubt a political point of view, but that is not one that comes within the scope of our Commission. We are not sitting to inquire into the general state of Ireland: we are not authorized to consider whether any special measures are desirable for the relief of Irish distress, for the conciliation of the Irish people, or for the subsidizing of Irish trades or interests:—these are very fair matters for the consideration of Ministers and of the House; but the Commission of which I am a member is simply, as I conceive, charged and empowered to report on those principles on which the railway system of the United Kingdom ought to be administered. And, looking at it from that point of view, and again stating that I am merely expressing my own opinion, and not wishing to pledge my colleagues, I do not see how we can draw any distinction between the case of Ireland and that of England. I think we are bound to consider this question and to report upon it as a whole.
  Having answered the Question of my hon. and gallant Friend, as I shall not be able to speak again in the course of the
  1018
  present discussion, I hope I shall be allowed to call attention to a kindred subject, to which my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for North Lancashire (Colonel Wilson Patten) is shortly about to address himself. My hon. and gallant Friend has given notice that he will to-night call the attention of the President of the Board of Trade to the enormous number of metropolitan railway schemes brought before Parliament in the present year. That is a subject which, I venture to say, the Government ought at once seriously to consider. If all these Bills go in the usual way before Select Committees, they must be referred, not to one Committee, but to two or more. I have seen the list, and it is impossible that any single Committee could undertake the task of dealing with them. But if they be referred to two Committees, that unity of plan and purpose which it is so desirable to retain where the metropolis is concerned will be lost. I have already stated that the capital of these projected metropolitan lines amounts, in round numbers, to £20,000,000. Their number is nearly one-half again as great as it was in 1864, when the magnitude of the undertakings projected caused Parliament to deal with them in a special manner. I think we ought to do again what we did two years ago. If it is inconvenient to send these Bills to two or three separate Committees, and if it is impossible to send them to any one Committee, the only alternative is to institute a preliminary inquiry and to weed the list, so to speak—to select those which are really urgent and important, and to throw over the rest to another Session. That was done two years ago by means of a Joint Committee of the two Houses. It was an experiment at the time, and an experiment as to the success of which many persons doubted. But it was one which when tried answered perfectly; and I never heard the general result which was arrived at complained of by any of the parties concerned. I think the Government cannot do better than repeat now what was done before. But if they adopt that course, it must be without delay. And I may remind them that the matter is one which, through the immense disturbance both of property and traffic that is involved, materially affects the comfort of three millions of people.
  COIONEL WILSON PATTENsaid, he had given notice of a Motion for that evening on the subject of railway and other

  1019
  Bills affecting the metropolis, but after the admirable speech of his noble Friend (Lord Stanley) it would be needless for him to trouble the House with the observations he had intended to offer. He would content himself with adding a few words to what had been already so pointedly urged. The exact amount of capital comprised in the Railway Bills affecting the metropolis for this present Session was £19,149,000; and this was exclusive of other Bills to be submitted to Committees which affected the metropolis indirectly, involving a capital of over £27,000,000. He begged to add his strong recommendation to the President of the Board of Trade to take up this question at an early period, and see whether it could not be brought within moderate compass. In 1863 a Committee of the House of Lords recommended that every year the metropolitan railways should be taken in hand in a preliminary investigation, and the results submitted for the guidance of Parliament. In 1864 this was done; and the metropolitan schemes were submitted to a Joint Committee of both Houses, of which his noble Friend the Member for King's Lynn, the President of the Board of Trade, and himself, were Members. The Joint Committee came to the resolution that, with a view of securing the most speedy and efficient communication between the various parts of the metropolis, all measures should be eliminated from the list of Railway Bills before Parliament which did not tend to some general scheme of communication. Acting in the spirit of that resolution a great number of Bills were thrown out, and a scheme of railway communication throughout the metropolis was drawn up and recommended as the basis of any future legislation. Unfortunately, in the last Session of Parliament the idea put forward by the Joint Committee of the previous year was abandoned. Independent companies came forward with plans having no reference whatever to the scheme, and rather interfering with the general plan. What he now suggested to his right hon. Friend was that rather by means of a Joint Committee, if the cooperation of the other House could be secured, or by means of a Royal Commission, it should be seen how far the metropolitan Railway Bills now before Parliament carried out the original recommendations of the two Houses. If any were found which failed to carry out, or which in any way interfered with, those original Colonel Wilson Patten
  1020
  recommendations, it ought at once to be set aside. This metropolitan question he took up, not so much from any personal interest in its solution—for many hon. Members naturally were more directly concerned in any decision which might be arrived at—as from its bearing on the large amount of Private Business before the House. This was so extensive that the greatest difficulty would be experienced in dealing with it, and if it were all proceeded with, he really did not think it would be possible to find Members to sit on all the various Committees that would be called for. The recommendation of the Board of Trade was to the effect that the metropolitan railways, fifty in number, should be divided into two groups; and that one Committee should take the railways on the north side of the river and the other those upon the south side. He could assure his right hon. Friend that the sacrifice of time which would be required from any Member undertaking the investigation of the Railway Bills affecting the northern side of the Thames would be a tax too serious almost to be imposed upon anybody. If the matter were left to chance, or if Members through overwork became careless in their attendance, there was great risk that the uniform plan of railway communication in the metropolis would be spoiled. It was very desirable, therefore, to establish, if possible, some preliminary investigation. Whether his right hon. Friend would agree to that suggestion he did not know, but the whole subject was worthy of his attention, considering the difficulties they would have to deal with if all these railway schemes were sent to Committees of that House without some previous arrangement.
  MR. MILNER GIBSON: I was not aware before the meeting of the House of the precise proposal which my hon. and gallant Friend (Colonel Wilson Patten) was about to make with regard to metropolitan railways. I shall, of course, hesitate, without due consideration, to refuse to entertain any proposal of his on that subject, knowing the great experience my hon. and gallant Friend possesses on questions relative to the Private Business of the House, and to the difficulty encountered in forming Committees to transact it. I must, however, say that on looking into the Railway Bills for this year affecting the metropolis, the Board of Trade has not thought them of such a magnitude, or of so unusual a character, as to call upon it

  1021
  to recommend the adoption of any exceptional course in respect to them. It is true that in 1864 there was a Joint Committee of both Houses which took into consideration the railway projects of the year affecting the metropolis and that it eliminated many of them, postponing them for a future Session, and allowing only a certain number to proceed. But there was a reason for that course. There had been a Committee of the Lords in 1863; that Committee had laid down a comprehensive scheme for the metropolis; and, in consequence of that, a great number and variety of projects were submitted, all more or less to give effect to the recommendations made in the previous year by the Committee of the other House. Therefore it was necessary, on that as well as on other grounds, to consider all those projects and see which should be permitted to go on and which ought to be deferred. I do not think that is the case now. It is quite true there are at present a good many Railway Bills, but they are not all brought forward for the purpose of executing new works, nor are they all promoted by new companies. Many of them are, in fact, promoted by existing companies, to extend existing lines, and to form new junctions with those lines, thus rendering works already executed more useful. [Lord STANLEY: It was so in 1864.] Perhaps, so. Many of these metropolitan Bills also are unopposed—that is to say, there may be claims on the part of individuals for compensation for private property intended to be taken, but no opposition is offered to the schemes as a whole. In making these remarks I am not prepared, indeed, to say that it may not be necessary to have some kind of an inquiry; but I much doubt whether the case requires the same formal proceeding as took place in 1864. At the present moment, I believe that six of those Bill have been abandoned; and in reckoning up the capital proposed to be expended, all that has been done is to look at every Bill and count up the various schemes, without taking into consideration the fact that some of them may be competing schemes, both of which Parliament cannot, of course, sanction. The capital of all these competing schemes, however, goes to swell the grand total. Again, I must observe that if 3,000,000 of people be collected in a great city like London—if we are to have our enormous trade, both import and export—if we are to drive out a large body of the inhabitants
  1022
  to live in the suburbs, we must be prepared to have increased railway accommodation to bring those people to the great centres of business. Therefore, we must not be astonished if projectors come forward, not asking for the money of the State, but merely for permission to invest their own capital in what they believe to be a profitable way, and to meet the requirements of that great community. That appears to me to be a view of the subject which should be kept in mind; and although the magnitude of these undertakings may startle us for a moment, we must look at the magnitude of that great metropolis, the extent of its trade, and the urgent necessity there is for increased facilities for its traffic. Why, look at the state of the public streets at the present moment—at the thronging and inconvenience produced by the crowded condition of the thoroughfares! And it should be observed that many of these railway projects—some at least of those in the present year—are in precise accordance with the previous recommendations of Parliament—namely, under-ground railways, which, while the works are in progress, no doubt may cause some inconvenience, but when once they are finished, except as regards certain houses that are taken for an adequate compensation, leave everything above ground wholly unaffected. My hon. and gallant Friend (Colonel Wilson Patten) says we cannot get Committees to do the work; and I will admit that it is rather a strong proposal to ask four hon. Gentlemen to attend to the entire group of Bills applicable to the north side of the Thames, while another Committee deals with the second group for the southern side. The labours of such a Committee will, no doubt, be very considerable. I do not, however, think they will be so great as my hon. and gallant Friend supposes. The six schemes which have been abandoned all related, I believe, to the northern side, and are precisely those which would have given rise to the greatest amount of labour and investigation; while, at the same time, they would have interfered most with the general plan previously laid down by Parliament. Many of the schemes for the north side are not opposed; they merely take ground for stations, or small extensions of existing works; and I believe the residue left to be disposed of by that Committee would not be so great as my hon. and gallant Friend imagines. Still, I am ready to join with my hon. and gallant

  1023
  Friend in going into a careful analysis of these projects, and to give my best consideration to the proposal which he has made that night. I think these matters will not be found to be so formidable; and I do hope that Members of Parliament will not shrink from the labour which devolves upon them in reference to these matters. It is a duty, and a most important one, which they have to perform for the public. They are sent to that House to perform such duties, and must not shrink from their discharge. If we can divide a great group into smaller groups in such a way that separate schemes not bearing on each other might be considered by a separate Committee, or adopt some other course of that kind, without incurring the risk of the uniformity of plan being destroyed, no doubt we should lessen the labours of particular Committees. The question is one with which the Government by itself can hardly deal properly, involving as it does duties and functions to be performed by the Members of that House, and especially those duties which are discharged so well by my hon. and gallant Friend, without whose assistance I should scarcely be able to come to a satisfactory conclusion on this subject. Therefore, if my hon. and gallant Friend will unite with me in considering these matters we need not despair of arriving at their solution; but I repeat that I do not think a case has been made out for so formal a proceeding in the present year as the appointment of a Joint Committee of both Houses.
  I will next turn to a very different subject, with respect to which some Questions have been put to me earlier in the evening, but which the forms of the House, forbidding me to speak twice in this debate, precluded me from adverting to before. I now refer to the fisheries of the United Kingdom, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Shoreham (Mr. Cave) has called attention. My hon. Friend has alluded to the Report of the Commissioners who lately inquired into the sea fisheries, and asked me whether it is the intention of the Government to propose, during the present Session, to give effect to their recommendations by any legislation. I may be permitted to say that I think a more able Report than that which those Commissioners have laid before Parliament and the country was never made. It is perfectly evident that this inquiry has been most searching and complete, and con-
  1024
  ducted in a most diligent and judicious manner; and as far as the Government have been enabled to give its consideration to their Report, the inclination of our mind undoubtedly is, at the proper opportunity, to give effect, at any rate, to some of their recommendations. It is not probable that at so early a period measures should have been matured for carrying out those large recommendations by legislation; but, as far as concerns the French Convention, Her Majesty's Government have sent to the Government of France a copy of the Report, and have invited its attention to it with the view of ascertaining the extent to which the French Government would be prepared to go in revising the present Convention and in the repeal of those obstructions to free fishing which the Commission have recommended should be abolished. With respect to the propriety of terminating the French Convention by notice, no project of that kind has been entertained. The French Government has on former occasions shown a great willingness to entertain the question of that Fishery Convention, and I think when the Report of the English Commission has been considered by that Government, that Report will materially assist them in coming to a conclusion as to the principles upon which some revision of that Convention should be based. We have had also the benefit of very important inquiries which have been made in France; and I think the ground is now laid for putting our fishery laws upon a sound and satisfactory footing. I have also been asked whether the Government proposes to introduce a Bill empowering persons to appropriate portions of the foreshore for the purpose of cultivating oysters, in accordance with the recommendations of the Commission. The matter is well worthy of consideration; but it is obvious that a proposal to enable private persons, by going through certain forms, to appropriate portions of the foreshore to their exclusive use, demands very cautious consideration. I am glad, in conclusion, to be able to say that the Report of the Commissioners has entirely put an end to the apprehension that had been entertained in certain quarters, that the supply of fish for food is materially diminishing, for the Commissioners have clearly proved that the agency of man has hardly an appreciable influence in diminishing the supply of fish. On the contrary, with the exception of oysters, fish is as plentiful as

  1025
  it has ever been, and oysters, even in their opinion, had not fallen off from over fishing, but from causes over which man has no control. It is highly satisfactory that an inquiry undertaken in the spirit of a proposal to increase the restrictions upon fishing, should have resulted in showing that the supply of fish and the interests of fishermen would be best promoted by free and unrestricted fishing.
  MR. AYRTONremarked, with reference to the statement of the President of the Board of Trade upon the subject of metropolitan railways, that, although he quite approved the spirit which induced the right hon. Gentleman to shrink from transferring the action of the Government upon the House or upon private legislation, yet he thought the feeling might be carried too far, because he could conceive of a state of things which would render it absolutely necessary for the right hon. Gentleman to interfere for the public good, and also for the purpose of ministering to the legitimate convenience of Members. The question of metropolitan railways was one of great interest and complexity. The present difficulty had arisen from the decision arrived at by the Joint Committee two years ago with respect to railways in the metropolis; for when the proposed restrictions had been once broken through Parliament was flooded with schemes. They were so numerous and so conflicting that there was great danger of confusion and delay, and in the meanwhile the injury to the inhabitants of London was enormous; houses were taken by thousands, and all the arrangements of business were seriously disturbed. He strongly urged that the whole of the schemes now before Parliament should be dealt with by one Committee of hon. Members, or, if possible, by a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament. If the many schemes were dealt with, as before, by several Committees in their separate rooms, the result, he feared, would be similar to the results of the past. Contradictory conclusions would be arrived at by the several Committees, based upon the diverse evidence of separate sets of witnesses, and thus discredit would be thrown upon the labours of hon. Gentlemen. To avoid this some directing mind should be brought to bear upon the whole subject, and the suggestion he had made would permit this to be done. He would also remind the House that the Board looking after the drainage of the metropolis
  1026
  had to watch these schemes in the interests of the public, and the greater the number of Committees the greater the expense to the ratepayers. He hoped these reasons would weigh with the right hon. Gentleman, and induce him to overcome those scruples which prevented him acting in the matter.
  MR. HARVEY LEWISexpressed a like opinion. In a great question of this kind, involving the welfare of thousands, nay, millions of people, different Committees, with different facts before them, ought not to have power of giving decisions; but the whole of the metropolitan railway schemes should be considered by one Committee, or one Commission, with all the facts before them. Additional railway accommodation was undoubtedly required in the metropolis; but that accommodation should be afforded according to a well-devised general scheme, and not on the haphazard speculation of different and conflicting companies. The working classes, turned out of their dwellings by the destruction inevitably arising from the making of metropolitan railways, ought also to have a large share of attention. A Joint Committee of the two Houses would probably be the best machinery.
  MR. WHALLEYbelieved that the remedy to the evil complained of was not to be found in a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament, but in carrying out this simple proposition—of taking railway as well as all other private business before another tribunal than the House of Commons. Two years ago he served on a Committee in which a proposition to the effect that the whole business of railway legislation ought not to be undertaken by that House was negatived only by a majority of one; and since then the country had been plunged into such a state in relation to railway construction that he believed we had to pay for new lines something like 15 per cent, while the outlay for similar purposes was only 5 per cent in France. Thus it came to pass that no man in his senses was disposed to invest a single shilling in railway shares, and that it was left to engineers, lawyers, and others to construct those great and useful works, as it were on their own terms. That was the result of their attempting to keep legislation with respect to railways within that House. The influence, he might add, which the great railway companies brought to bear on that House and its Committees was perfectly unprece-

  1027
  dented; and it was their interest to prevent the construction of independent lines, and to retain the powers they already possessed. He (Mr. Whalley) considered that competition ought to be encouraged, and that the same system should be adopted with respect to railways which had been found to answer in other cases—namely, the delegation of these matters of detail to a tribunal properly constituted. As an illustration of the extent to which it prevailed, he might mention that after a Resolution that no Private Bill relating to railways should be opposed on the ground that the proposed line would enter into competition with an existing line had been carried in the Committee of 1863, it had, owing to the influence to which he referred, been rescinded. Such was the unsatisfactory nature of the existing system that a leading counsel before Parliamentary Committees was heard to say that he never had a case so bad as to lead him to despair of success, nor one so good as to make him feel confident that he would not fail. The question was one of great national importance, and the Government ought, he thought, to take it up in the national interest.

FENIANISM IN AMERICA.

  QUESTION.
  MR. WATKINsaid, that he had postponed the Question and Motion of which he had given notice till to-night in deference to the wishes of hon. Members anxious to complete the discussion of the Cattle Plague Bill, and he did not regret it, for in the interval the House had learned from high authority—namely, that of the right hon. Gentleman the Home Secretary, that the Fenian conspiracy was of American and not of Irish origin, and that it was not countenanced by the Government of the United States. This announcement was no doubt made upon definite information, and he was anxious that the House and the country should be re-assured by that information being officially made known. On the other hand, the postponement had placed him in this position, that the subject of the remarks he should have to make, though analogous to that so ably raised by the hon. Member, had been divided from it by a discussion on railways and a reply about the oyster fisheries. He could, no doubt, have imitated the example afforded him and have
  1028
  spoken upon the Motion of the hon. Member, but he thought he should thereby have strained the rules of the House. He had now to submit what, perhaps, might be considered the other half of this international question. His Question to the right hon. Gentleman was, If any and what representations have been made by Her Majesty's Government to the Government of the United States in reference to the Fenian organization in America, and more especially as to the employment of United States officers, the issue of bonds of the so-called Irish Republic, and the threats made to levy war upon the dominions of Her Majesty by that organization? And he also moved for all papers connected with the subject, in order that the House might know the true position of affairs and ascertain whether or not the Government had given, as he hoped, their serious attention to so pressing and serious a matter. He had received a friendly hint from an hon. Friend who usually sat in that part of the House to the effect that it was undesirable to raise this Question for fear of causing irritation in the United States, and because the Fenian movement would, if let alone, at last die out. He feared it would not die out of itself, and that it would have to be repressed. He was not likely to say anything which could lead to irritation. He had visited the United States frequently. He had considerable interest in its industry and physical progress, and he was proud to count many citizens of that great country as his personal friends. The people of this country were an outspoken people, and those of the United States were not less outspoken, and they each honoured the other for the quality. He did not believe that anything could be, or ever had been, gained to the cause of truth and right by the concealment of the true opinions of one great people as to the conduct or omissions of another. On the contrary, the language of mystery always led to misapprehension of its motives, and that which frank and honest representation would easily set right grew into dimensions of difficulty and danger. He felt sure, therefore, that the people and the Government of the United States, so far from being offended, would be glad to know the real opinion of this country, as reflected by that House, upon the pending movement. He had recently been in the United States. He was at Philadelphia when the Fenian Congress was sitting there in October last.

  1029
  He was in New York when the headquarters of the Fenian organization were removed from Duane Street to one of the largest houses in Union Square, which was set up as what they called the Fenian "Capitol," and was surmounted by their adopted flag. He was also in Canada when rumours, more or less serious, arrived of intended Fenian raids into British territory, and knew that preparations had to be made to resist attack. A few days after he left Washington a Fenian deputation, beaded by Colonel Roberts, waited upon—he hoped he might say intruded themselves upon—President Johnson at the "White House," the official residence of the President of the United States, to thank him, on behalf of the Fenian Congress of Philadelphia, for the liberation of John Mitchell. The deputation said that that congress contained delegates from no less than thirty States and territories of the American Union affiliated together for the liberation of Ireland. Now, the result of the observations he had been able to make convinced him of three things—first, that the Fenian organization was exclusively and without doubt or question of American origin, being, in fact, a continuation of the old "Phcenix" Societies; second, that it was not sympathized in by native Americans at large—still less by the native American officers of the United States army; and third, that it did not arise from or exist in those immense portions of the continent over which, happily, the British Crown held sway and the British flag floated. Now, while the deliberations of the Fenians were called secret, their object and the mode by which they sought to accomplish them were known and avowed. No one in the United States could plead that he did not know that there existed a vast ramification all over the States, having war with a peaceful ally for its avowed object. With regard to the congress at Philadelphia, he might mention that one peculiar feature was the presence of a large number of officers in the employment and pay of the Government of the United States. He had got in his hand a list of a very small committee of the congress, and yet it contained the names of no less than ten volunteer officers belonging to the United States. Three of these were generals, five were colonels, one was a captain, and the last one was a lieutenant. [Mr. ROEBUCK: What countrymen are they?] They were Irish-Americans, availing themselves of
  1030
  the rights of American citizenship. During the constant public discussions in America many things were said which completely disclosed the objects of the Fenian organization. He had with him many reports, including the report of a meeting of delegates to the Fenian Congress, and, without troubling the House with the speeches, he might mention that the general result was that the speakers avowed that they had met to "complete" their organization, the object being to "liberate" Ireland from the Government of Her Majesty, and do so, if need be, by force of arms. But he would picture what the organization was by quoting other and more definite evidence. First of all, Mr. Justice Keogh, in charging the jury at the first of the recent trials in Ireland, described Fenianism as follows. That learned Judge said—
  "That its ramifications existed not only in this country, but in the States of America; that the supplies of money and of arms for the purposes of a general insurrection were being collected, not only here, but on the other side of the Atlantic; and, finally, that the object of this confederation was the overthrow of the Queen's authority, the separation of this country from Great Britain, the destruction of our present Constitution, the establishment of some democratic or military despotism, and a general division of every description of property as the result of a successful civil war."
  And certainly the evidence adduced at these trials, and the convictions of the conspirators which followed, fully proved the main points of the description. But he would not rely upon even this alone. He would, with the permission of the House, read a description of the Fenians given by the Fenians themselves. It was an extract from the New York World—their organ—and it stated—
  "There is in this city (New York) a military engineering class of 100, taught by an engineer formerly on M'Clellan's staff in the peninsular campaign. Subscriptions are handed in to large amounts every week from all parts of the country. A bank account is kept by the Brotherhood in its own name, and a clerical force is employed to keep the accounts and attend to the correspondence of the Brotherhood. One of the bank note companies, as Colonel Roberts stated in his speech last night, are printing 8 per cent bonds in the name of the 'Irish Republic,' one and indivisible. They will be ready next week in denominations of 10 dollars, 20 dollars, 50 dollars, 100 dollars, 600 dollars, and 1,000 dollars. In the centre will be a figure of Liberty drawing a sword, and at the sides vignettes of Emmett and Lincoln. It is confidently hoped by the leaders that these will be taken up very rapidly, and that large orders will come from the country and from the West. It is stated that negotiations are pending for the purchase of eight ocean steamers, each warranted to

  1031
  carry 1,000 men, with the certainty almost that the purchase will be made before the 1st of October. It is farther said that there have been immense purchases of arms from the Government by parties who are supposed to be identified with the Fenians, and that propositions for further purchases are now under consideration. At the Fenian headquarters in Duane Street they are continually boxing up muskets, but of course no information is given as to where they are sent. There are twentyseven circles in New York, and Colonel John O'Mahoney is the head centre of the organization throughout the country."
  It was stated also with respect to the Fenians, by an independent and impartial resident authority known to many Members of that House, that
  "There is a Secretary of War, a Secretary of the Navy, and most of the usual officers of a regularly constituted Government. The society is known to be in treaty with a gunmaker for the purchase of a large quantity of arms which he bought of the Government after the war. The agents of the Fenians have been in Washington within the last fortnight, endeavouring to ascertain whether Mr. Welles, the Secretary of the Navy, will sell them any of the vessels for which the Government has no further use. Whether they succeeded in seeing Mr. Welles or not I cannot say; but it is well known that they have had interviews with Mr. Stanton. These facts, taken together, and many other circumstances which it would be too tedious to repeat, but which are well known here, prove at least that the Fenian organization is now a power, and one which cannot be scattered by the arrest of a few of its members in Ireland."
  That was the representation of the able and well-informed correspondent of The Times, whom no one would suspect of inaccuracy or exaggeration. He would now say a few words with regard to the extent of the Fenian organization, and the means by which it was maintained. He found by certain documents in his possession that the organization had raised within the last seven years 5,000,000 dollars, and that from September the 10th to October the 29th, 1865, their receipts amounted to 120,650 dollars 22 cents, and the expenditure to over 100,000 dollars. On October 28 there were in the United States 613 circles, with an average membership of 300 persons each, or about 184,000 in all. He would now endeavour to show how the money was expended; because, with respect to Fenian development in Ireland, it had been said that the discontent of the Irish people proceeded entirely from their grievances. He called the special attention of the House to the item he was about to quote. The first item in the expenditure was 62,567 dollars for "envoys," from October 31, 1865, to January 9, 1866, and that meant that £40,000 a year was ex-
  1032
  pended to stir up sedition and disaffection in different parts of Her Majesty's dominions. This accounted for much, and in defence of the loyalty of Ireland he would ask whether a systematic agency and expenditure such as now disclosed would not lead to treasonable organization either in Ireland or wherever ignorance and poverty existed? Here were the tempters, and it was the duty of the Governments on both sides of the Atlantic to punish them. Here was the real source of the evil in Ireland. He meant to say that the Irish people were being preyed upon and seduced from their allegiance by American gold; and as long as the Government neglected to deal with this question at its source, and were content simply to prosecute a few misguided men in Ireland, their efforts to stop the movement would fail. There was, in his humble opinion, a plain line of duty before them; it was for the right hon. Gentlemen to show how far they had fulfilled it. He would now turn to a more cheering aspect of the case. To show that Fe-nianism was hardly known to exist in the British North American possessions, he would quote from a letter dated Christmas Day, 1865, to the Lieutenant Governor of New Brunswick by a distinguished Irishman and a distinguished Catholic, Dr. Conolly, Catholic Archbishop of Halifax, Nova Scotia. Dr. Conolly said—
  "On the occasion of my recent visit to the United States, many of these poor deluded people talked as flippantly and confidently of taking all British America in the course of this winter and holding it as if they already had the title deeds in their packets. If they come on the strength of their own resources, it will indeed be a laughable scare; and from what is now occurring at New York, we may easily foresee the glorious denouement. Two millions of Protestants and eighteen hundred thousand Catholics, who have mothers, wives, and daughters, happy homes and free altars, and a Government of their own choice, will meet them as they would the freebooter and the assassin, with knife in hand, on the trail of his victim. From their success we have nothing to expect but bloodshed, rapine, and anarchy, and the overthrow of God's religion; for all this is inscribed on their banners."
  This was not the time to enter upon the question of how far equality of civil and religious rights and of self-government had led to this cheering contrast; but it was the fact that loyalty to Great Britain was divided only by the United States boundary line. He now came to the question whether these illegal proceed

  1033
  ings, so open and done avowedly with the object of stirring up a war with this country, had been treated as they ought to be treated by the Government of the United States, with whom we were at peace; and whether Her Majesty's Government were warranted in tolerating such an outrage on our national rights and so much opposed to every feeling that ought to subsist between the two nations. Recently the United States had taken a step which seemed to him to redound in every way to their credit; and having had the honour of interviews with President Johnson and with many of the leading men in the United States, he thought he could trace the President's own hand in the circumstance he was about to allude to; and, when he remembered the conduct of President Johnson with regard to the recent raid upon Mexican territory, and his dismissal of General Sweeney from the service of the United States, he could not help entertaining a suspicion that our own Government might be at fault. He would say also that statements which had been made in this country regarding the President were premature and misapplied, and that there was not a man living who was more desirous to perform every international obligation, or more earnestly labouring to heal the open wounds of his country, or more determined to preserve a peaceful alliance with this country. He felt assured that the President regarded this alliance as essential to the progress of the Anglo-Saxon race and to the peace and progress of the world. Now, the step he alluded to affected Spain—a country with which the United States were at peace, but with which they had little else in common. The disputes between Chili and Spain had led to the preparation of an expedition against Spain from the shores of America, and Senor M'Kenna, the Chilian resident in New York, with the aid of American citizens, had undoubtedly copied the Fenians by preparing to fit out a hostile expedition. Now, dealing on behalf of Spain, what had been done? Why, Senor M'Kenna was arrested by a primary order from the President, given through the Secretary of State to the district marshal, and on the 6th of this month of February M'Kenna was brought before the Grand Jury of New York, a true bill was found against him, and he was at this moment in prison. The indictment was found against him under the
  1034
  6th section of the Neutrality Act of 1818, which provides that—
  "If any person shall, within the territory or jurisdiction of the United States, begin or set on foot, or provide or prepare, the means for any military expedition or enterprise, to be carried on from thence against the territory or dominion of any foreign prince or State, or any colony, district, or people, with whom the United States are at peace, every person so offending shall be deemed guilty of a high misdemeanor, and shall be fined not exceeding 3,000 dollars or imprisoned not more than three years. The indictment by the Crand Jury was procured at the instance of United States District Attorney Dickinson, on intimation received from the Secretary of State, who was, of course, directed in the matter by the President."
  He contended that the Fenian combination was an undoubted breach of the public law of the United States. He would for a moment turn to an American authority, for he thought it much better to quote American authorities than either French or English. He would read an extract from Wlieaton's International Law, page 499—
  "By their treaties with several of the belligerent Powers, treaties forming part of the law of the land, they had established a state of peace with them. But without appealing to treaties, they were at peace with them all by the law of nature; for by the natural law, man is at peace with man till some aggression is committed, which by the same law authorizes one to destroy another, as his enemy. For the citizens of the United States, then, to commit murders and depredations on the members of other nations, or to combine to do it, appeared to the American Government as much against the laws of the land as to murder or rob, or combine to murder or rob, their own citizens; and as much to require punishment, if done within the limits where they had a territorial jurisdiction—or on the high seas, where they had a personal jurisdiction, that is to say, one which reached their own citizens only; this being an appropriate part of each nation, on an element where each has a common jurisdiction."
  The same distinguished writer went on to say—
  "The same principles were afterwards incorporated in a law of Congress passed in 1794, and revised and re-enacted in 1818, by which it is declared to be a misdemeanor for any person within the jurisdiction of the United States to augment the force of any armed vessel, belonging to one foreign Power at war with another Power, with whom they are at peace; or to prepare any military expedition against the territories of any foreign nation with whom they are at peace; or to hire or enlist troops or seamen for foreign military or naval service; or to be concerned in fitting out any vessel to cruise or commit hostilities in foreign service, against a nation at peace with them; and the vessel, in this latter ease, is made subject to forfeiture."

  1035
  Now, he confidently put it to the House, this being the law and these the principles upon which that law was founded, that the Fenian association was an illegal one and its members misdemeanants. If he required to add another fact, it would be to quote the speech of a gentleman who was called the Head Centre for the State of New York, in which he stated distinctly and publicly that before very long privateers would be fitted out, with the view of preying on the commerce of England. Taking all these facts together, surely there was enough to convince any man that—to say nothing of technical obligations—all the high obligations of honour and good association between nation and nation had, in the unchecked operations of the Fenians, been most signally outraged. Well, they found that in the case of the attempt to make war on the comparatively weak and unimportant Power of Spain summary, immediate, instant justice had been done; and with regard to the Emperor of the French, notwithstanding the provocation of the presence of a French army in Mexico, contrary to the traditional views and to the policy of the fathers of the American Republic, explanation had been given. How, then, was it that in our case the proper position had not been taken? How was it that, after seven years, an organization which raised 5,000,000 dollars in that period for the purpose of making war on this country had been allowed to go on without remonstrance or interference on the part of Her Majesty's Government? He might be told, perhaps, by the right hon. Gentleman who would follow him, and who, he hoped, would deal with this question fully and in perfect frankness, that he was casting undue suspicion on the Government, and that they had used every means in their power to put an end to this state of things. He trusted that would appear to be the case. He would not believe that this country was singled out by the United States for an exceptional and insulting denial of justice; and he still hoped that the Government would be able to show that British interests had not been left to take care of themselves. At all events, the people of America would learn what was the opinion of the House of Commons. Let him say, in conclusion, that in dealing with this question, they were not dealing with British interests alone, but with the interests and the honour of the United States also. The
  1036
  Government of the United States was too sagacious not to perceive that if they once permitted the turbulent and restless foreign element which their society contained to violate their own laws with impunity, if not with encouragement, they were perilling their own public liberty by undermining public order. They were giving way to a licence which at last might overcome them, and holding out temptations and affording precedents most dangerous to the future. In fact, the only danger to the permanence of their institutions was the existence of this element, which had no ties to the past or to the future, and which loved their land only for the sake of the lawlessness they might exercise within the Union. For their sake, then, and for ours, he asked why wise and just laws should not be enforced, and why Great Britain and the States should be placed in antagonism for want of that enforcement? He would hope for the best. He trusted the right hon. Gentleman would be able to assure the House that Government had exhausted, should it have been necessary, every means of representation and remonstrance; but beyond that he hoped that it would turn out that the Government at Washington, amidst all the peculiar political difficulties with which the question was, as he fully admitted, surrounded, had loyally dealt with us in making efforts to put down this evil. For he prayed that nothing might arise from this, or any other cause whatever, to check the co-operation of the two countries in all that promoted liberty and civilization, or to disturb the maintenance of brotherhood and kindly relations between them.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Sir, I feel it to be a matter of public duty, and I think it is one of considerable public importance, that I should immediately follow the hon. Gentleman. I should consider that I failed in my duty if I allowed any other Member to interpose. I will despatch very shortly, obeying reluctantly the somewhat confused and confusing law of the House, any reference that may be necessary to matters which were raised in the earlier part of the evening. The hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Darby Griffith) made a proposal that the rates of postage on newspapers should be reduced, in consequence of the low rates at which they were carried by the railways. He mentioned that newspapers were in some instances carried by railways from station

  1037
  to station at a halfpenny, and in Some cases at a farthing. It would be in vain to enter on a detailed reply to the hon. Member, but there is this broad distinction to be made between the service performed by the Post Office and the railways, that the latter undertake no kind whatever of collection or distribution, and that is the most serious and costly part of the service performed by the Post Office. There are other distinctions as to the service rendered, but I think I may for the present waive the details of that question. Then with regard to the Question put by the hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Queen's county in relation to the Irish railways. He made a joint appeal to the noble Lord the Member for King's Lynn (Lord Stanley) and myself, and he received from the noble Lord a reply explanatory of the views of the Commission on that very important subject. The course of the Government is for the present necessarily limited in a very great degree by the proceedings of the Commission. I may, however, say that we shall not be disposed to be kept back by trivial obstacles, or to be restrained by any considerations of form or by any argument of a doubtful character from putting a favourable construction upon any plans which may be proposed or suggested with regard to the Irish question. Beyond this I can hardly go. There are many points of difference between the connection of Government with English and with Irish railways, one in particular being that there is no comparison between the capitals sunk in those undertakings in the two countries. It must also be recollected that while the Royal Commission has done much to inform us upon the subject of Irish railways, the companies themselves have done nothing towards laying any practical suggestions before the Government upon which they could act. And now I come to the important remarks which have been made by the hon. Member for Stockport (Mr. Watkin). The hon. Member asks if any and what representations have been made by Her Majesty's Government to the Government of the United States in reference to the Fenian organization in America, and more especially as to the employment of United States officers, the issue of bonds of the so-called Irish Republic, and the threats made to levy war upon the dominions of Her Majesty by that organization. No Motion has been made by the hon. Gentleman, but I believe
  1038
  I may say that there are no papers relating to this matter that can be produced.
  MR. WATKINsaid, that he had omitted to conclude with a Motion, believing that it was needless. He trusted he should be permitted to supply the omission. He moved for the production of the papers connected with the subjects.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: It is immaterial. There are no papers upon this subject to be produced. The hon. Member, apparently anticipating that a reason might be asked of him for raising the discussion which he has introduced, stated as his reason for so doing that the people of the United States are an outspoken people, and that we in this country are an outspoken people also. I entirely concur with the hon. Gentleman in thinking that the perfectly free discussion of all subjects whatever in this House forms perhaps the most characteristic, and also the most valuable, and important feature of our habits. At the same time it does appear to me that considerations of time and of place, and of the order of proceedings, as well as considerations of prudence and policy bear very strongly not against the general principle announced by the hon. Gentleman, but upon the question whether particular things should or should not be said at a particular time or in a particular place. I confess if I ask myself what useful object it is that the hon. Member anticipates from commencing a discussion upon this subject at the present moment, I find it difficult to give an answer to the question. I would ask the hon. Gentleman to recollect, considering the tone of his remarks, the position in which we ourselves usually and habitually stand in the face of foreign nations—that the proceedings of English citizens are constantly made the subject of complaint abroad, and that imputations are constantly thrown upon the English Government of a disinclination to interfere with those proceedings—I would ask him further to remember that we plead against those imputations the freedom of our laws and our habits, and the extreme inexpediency and imprudence of attempts on the part of Government at taking measures of repression on behalf of, or in the interests of a foreign Government, unless those measures of repression are founded upon facts perfectly notorious and are certain to be attended with success. I am bound to say I do not think there was in the speech of the hon. Gentleman a sufficient allowance for those

  1039
  considerations on behalf of the Government of the United States. Now, in looking at the hon. Gentleman's statements, I find that he made them with the hope that I should be able to show that all means of repression had been exhausted by the United States Government. [Mr. WATKIN expressed his dissent.] I am quoting as nearly as possible the words of the hon. Member.
  MR. WATKIN: The right hon. Gentleman has not quite accurately described what I meant to say. It was that I hoped that the right hon. Gentleman and his Colleagues would be able to show the House that they had exhausted every means in their power to prevail upon the Government of the United States to fulfil the duties of neutrality, and that that Government was loyally endeavouring to do so.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: I accept the hon. Member's correction of my statement, but do not think the difference is material. Does the hon. Gentleman really suppose that on his making these statements from the newspapers for the first time publicly in this House, without having had any previous communication with Government on the subject, it would be in my power to follow him, to identify the sources from which he drew his information—in some instances he did not state what those sources were—and to show upon a careful examination which of these statements could or could not be made matters of representation to the United States Government? I am bound to say that it does appear to me that if we are to maintain the full discharge of international duties, these international duties affect not Governments alone, but also all those who fill public stations in civilized countries. If statements are to be made apparently with the intention of implicating the good faith of a foreign country, it is hardly too much to ask that those statements should first be placed in the hands of the authorized representatives of our own Government, in order that, if necessary, those particular statements may be made the subject of communication between the two countries, so that our own Government may either be made responsible for declining to act upon those statements, or else that the Government of which the complaint is made, may be made responsible for declining to act upon the remonstrances which may be addressed to them in reference to those statements. The Chancellor of the Exchequer
  1040
  The hon. Gentleman has made statements which are in a great measure vague with regard to the points in issue. It may be perfectly true—and is, unhappily, too true—that Fenianism in the main, and by the means by which it is supported, is a thing imported from America. As to that there can be no doubt. But that is not by any means sufficient to show that representations should be made to the American Government, and that that Government should be challenged to put it down, or to show good reason for not doing so. There are Gentlemen here who heard the admirable speech made by my hon. and learned Friend the Attorney General in the early part of the evening. What did he say in reference to the demand that we should submit the case of the Alabama to arbitration. He said—
  "We are reluctant to allow that the Government are responsible for the putting down and the prevention of things which cannot be put down and prevented."
  But the hon. Member wishes to throw that responsibility upon the American Government. There are two things which we have a right to expect from the American Government. One is, that when the American laws have been broken they should promptly vindicate those laws on behalf of England. The hon. Member pointed out that in the case of Spain the United States Government had promptly vindicated. Yes, but the acts done in the case of Spain by Senor M'Kenna—namely, the purchase of one or more ships and equipping them for an expedition was a thing above board, lying upon the surface of affairs, evident in the light of day, and easy to be made the subject of legal proceedings. But it is not enough for the hon. Member to come here and say that the Fenians had held a congress at Philadelphia or had collected so much money in so many years in order to raise the presumption that the American Government have neglected their duties. He should show that such proceedings have been notorious—not merely notorious in the way things are when dependent upon public rumour—but notorious in such a way that they could have been made the subject of judicial investigation. The hon. Gentleman has done nothing of the kind. I listened to his speech, and I heard nothing from him to show that any acts had been done in America in violation of the American laws which it was the duty of

  1041
  the American Government to have re pressed and punished by their ordinary tribunals. The hon. Gentleman spoke of a deputation to President Johnson, but he told us nothing of what took place between that deputation and the President. I do not imagine—and I mention this because it certainly had at first sight an important appearance—that he placed much reliance upon or intends to raise from that interview any inference adverse to the Government of the United States, because he paid a very high, and, if I may presume to say so, a very just compliment to President Johnson in a later part of his speech, when he expressed his full conviction and belief that President Johnson was a man anxious to do all he could for the maintenance of the friendly relations between the two countries, and for the fulfilment of all international duties. There are two cases I just said in which we might expect the United States Government to act, one being where offences have been committed against the American laws; but no proof has been laid before us that such offences have been committed in the way that would make them the subject of legal cognizance. Therefore, we have no ground of complaint against the American Government in that respect. The other case, is that, in the event of any attempt at using force by these misguided men in the United States against any portion of the British dominions, we have a right to expect that the Government of the United States will repel and put down any such attempt by the use of superior force. No such case, however, has happened, and therefore upon that ground we have no cause for action. There is, I grant, also a case where persons in public employment are concerned in the Fenian conspiracy. The hon. Gentleman says that ten volunteer officers, whom he designated as Irish-Americans, were members of a Fenian Congress; but we do not know what, if anything, was done, or in what manner anything was done, by anybody, or at any time, in which those officers took part. The hon. Gentleman has stated that General Sweeney had been dismissed from the service of the United States; consequently, so far as that was concerned, my hon. Friend has no title to complain of the Government of the United States. That officer was dismissed, I believe, for absence without leave. But I must know a great deal more about what General Sweeney did, and the charges must be
  1042
  clearly brought home to him, before I can make any proceedings of the Government of the United States, in respect to him, matter of condemnation or taunt. I have no more to say with regard to the particular allegations of my hon. Friend. I hold that where they are vague they had better not have been made. Where they are definite, where they tend, if any of them do tend, to show a default of duty, which I do not admit, on the part of the United States Government, the fair course towards any friendly Government, or towards any Government in alliance with Her Majesty, is to take care that those allegations shall first be placed in the hands of the responsible Ministers of the Crown. It is utterly impossible that upon being produced without notice in this House they can be properly or satisfactorily explained. As regards the Question of my hon. Friend—"If any and what representations have been made by Her Majesty's Government to the United States in reference to the Fenian organization in America," I answer—we have not made any representations. We have seen cause to deplore much that has taken place there, but we have had no cause which would have justified us in making representations to the Government of the United States upon the subject. My hon. Friend has said that it is vain to act in Ireland unless we deal with the evil at its source. Those are, certainly, very big words. To deal with the evil at its source in the dominions of a foreign Power would, perhaps, involve measures for the ascertainment of the facts which we would not for one moment tolerate or hear of in this country. Let us, who are anxious, and justly anxious, to maintain our own country as a sanctuary against every undue and doubtful demand of a foreign Government, have a little forbearance and toleration in judging of the proceedings of the Governments of other countries. We have not made any representations to the United States Government. Had we had facts of a nature that would have justified such a course, I need not say that we should have taken it. But such representations must have been made in view of definite ends. The mere general remonstrance which my hon. Friend recommends, the mere complaint to the United States Government of what is going on in America, the mere setting forth of the inconvenience which arises to us from those lawless proceedings—for such they are—of certain American sub-

  1043
  jects, would have diminished the dignity of this country. When we have definite materials of complaint or of representation, then let us proceed with them; but because we are hurt and wounded with what is going on, because we have a right to feel a just indignation against the guilty promoters of those enterprizes, do not let us attempt to make the United States Government responsible for what we have reason to believe it has been unequal to prevent, and for what, had the case been invented and the proceedings taken place in our own dominions, we in like manner should have been unable to prevent. We have confidence in the United States. We believe that the Government of the United States will fulfil its international obligations to the best of its power. We have confidence further in the public opinion of the United States. As far as we are informed the public opinion of the United States, like the public opinion of England, and like the public opinion of Ireland, condemns this Fenian movement. We are told that with that condemnation there is mingled in America something of contempt, that the promoters of Fenianism are regarded as guilty fanatics, whose strength is not in proportion to their zeal or to their evil intentions. Of course, this is a matter on which it is impossible to speak as if we had official testimony; but if what I have stated be true, it is an important point which must greatly affect our policy with the American Government. With that belief, if we are justified in entertaining it, the House, I think, will hardly be surprised if I say that the days are as yet too early, and the information by far too crude and immature, to allow us to accept statements in this House which tend, even by remote implication, to raise a suspicion of breach of duty on the part of an allied and friendly Government. We are very sore about these things ourselves, when we read that somebody in congress, or somebody in some assembly abroad, has made imprudent speeches and has placed the executive Government of their country in difficulty. Well, the tables are now turned. Let us, the Members of this House, show that, long educated in the habits of freedom, we have, as we are bound to have, more self-command than the less trained and less practised representatives of other countries. Let us have some trust in the justice with which we have endeavoured to regulate our relations with Ireland, and in the power which this
  1044
  country possesses to preserve order in every portion of Her Majesty's dominions. Let us rely on our dignity and character: which are never at a higher point than when joined with patience and endurance, unconnected with the suspicion of weakness, and resting firmly on the consciousness of strength. This course, I trust, we shall pursue. Do not let us heedlessly sow the seeds of mistrust between these two great countries. I would not for a moment conceal that the seed of this mischief lies in America, and that an active agency is coming from America; but, though it is in America, we do not believe it to be of America. We do not believe it to be the genuine fruit of American sentiment, or the genuine representation of the American mind. We believe it to be condemned there as it is condemned here, and, in the total absence of all evidence to the contrary, we say—Let us trust the friendly Government which has not as yet failed in its duty, and which we believe will not fail. Of course, the matter is entirely one for the judgment of the House. Having made a speech myself, it may not seem to be very good taste to repress the speeches of other Members; but I frankly say, as far as I may presume, with due respect, to make such a statement to the House, that it is for the public interest that the consideration and handling of this subject at the present time and under the present circumstances should be in the hands of the Executive.
  MR. WATKIN: After the statement of the right hon. Gentleman, I prefer the responsibility for its withdrawal remaining with the Government.
  MR. OTWAYsaid, that in these matters he thought that safety was not always to be found in silence. In 1853, when the relations between this country and Russia were in a state of extreme tension, his hon. Friend (Mr. Layard) persistently but unsuccessfully requested information from the Government with regard to these matters, but he was always met with the answer that it would not be consistent with public interests that the subject should be discussed in the House. What happened? The country "drifted" into a war. His hon. Friend was then, and, he believed, was still of opinion that if discussion had taken place, and the Emperor of Russia had been made acquainted with the opinion of this country through the House of Commons, the Crimean War would have been averted. So he hoped

  1045
  it would be with regard to this Fenian question. He had too much confidence in the justice and good feeling of President Johnson, and of the American people, to believe for one instant that if they were aware of the state of feeling in this country, and of the mischief which was being created by the Fenian organization in America, that they would tolerate it any longer. He was convinced, that if the American people were acquainted with this fact, the American Government would take steps to put an end to proceedings as dangerous to that country as to England. It was with this conviction that he thought it advisable, soon at all events, if not immediately, to discuss this matter. He could not imagine that President Johnson, who had on so many occasions exhibited a most friendly feeling towards this country, and who had described himself in a personal interview with his hon. Friend as animated by feelings of friendship and sympathy towards us, would have granted the release of that notorious convict and rebel, Mitchell, at the request of the Fenian Association, or have allowed a regiment of the New York State Militia to have protected the so-called President of the Irish Be public while occupying a building termed the Capitol, had he known how these acts would be regarded in this country. These things were done, he believed, because not only the President, but also the whole of the people of America regarded the movement with the most profound contempt, and because they were not aware of the light in which it was viewed in this country. But what was a joke in New York became a crime in Ireland. Out of eighty-five men lately arrested in Ireland, forty-five were Irish Federal officers. He was therefore satisfied that it was for the interests of this country that representations should be made to the American Government. When, however, the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that the Government had no information upon the subject, he should like to know what our Minister at Washington had been doing. The right hon. Gentleman said that the statements of his hon. Friend the member for Stockport were too vague, and could not be regarded as authentic. They were, however, matters of notoriety. Not only had they been published in the American newspapers, but they had been copied by the English and French press, and foreign newspapers were discussing the subject and asking us
  1046
  what we were going to do. Our Minister must be acquainted with these facts, and must have greatly neglected his duty if he had not drawn the attention of our Government to them. He believed, therefore, that Her Majesty's Ministers would be greatly neglecting their duty if they did not make some representations to the American Government upon the subject, making that Government acquainted with the light in which Fenianism was regarded in England, and the misery it was causing in Ireland.
  MR. OLIPHANTsaid, that in spite of the suggestion which had fallen from the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer, he could not avoid trespassing for a few moments upon the indulgence of the House, as he totally differed from the hon. Member who had just spoken. He thought that no course could possibly be more unwise than that recommended by the hon. Member for Stockport (Mr. Watkin). He had only just returned from America, where he had ample opportunity of forming a judgment upon the Fenian movement, and ascertaining the amount of support which it derived from the American people. He might tell the hon. Gentleman that if he were himself a "Head Centre" he could not possibly have suggested a course more agreeable to the leaders of that movement. The one thing the Fenians desired was that notice should he taken of them. Their proceedings had been ridiculed from one end of America to the other. The request which they had ever made was that the sympathy which had persistently been denied to their movement should be accorded by the American Government. He did not believe that it was difficult to account for the unpopularity in which the Fenian movement was held in America. The Americans denied them any sympathy, in the first place, because there was not a gentleman among them. The Americans had a peculiar susceptibility upon that point. They admired such an individual when they could find him. But when they found that the Fenians were composed of the hewers of wood, the drawers of water, the waiters at hotels, and men engaged in similar occupations, the movement failed entirely in gaining the respect and admiration of the American people. Again, the Fenians had been ill-advised enough to start another nationality, and there could not possibly be anything more distasteful to the Americans, who approved no nationality but the

  1047
  Anglo-Saxon, to which they belonged. But the Fenians endeavoured to establish a Celtic nationality in Canada, just as it was desired to set up a Latin Empire in Mexico. The Fenians were in a manner regarded as traitors to the country, because the idea of losing the bone and sinew of the country, the Irish population by whom all the drudgery was performed, was viewed by the Americans with little short of horror. If they could possibly stop Fenianism, they would do so to-morrow. Besides, to secure for such a movement the sympathy of a great nation, the leaders must act with some consistency, and display not only dignity, but also some political sagacity. But ever since the Fenians had obtained money sufficient to quarrel over, they immediately commenced their bickerings, and the disputes of Mr. Head Centre O'Mahoney and President Roberts had become the laughing stock of the whole country. The New York Herald, which had at first taken a good deal of notice of the Fenians in consequence of its large circulation among the Irish, had, by trying to please each party, gained the antagonism of both, and the editor of the New York Times, Mr. Raymond, more unfortunate still, was challenged by O'Mahoney at the outset of his career to mortal combat. Acting in this manner, they did not conciliate public feeling in America. There was another reason why they were unpopular in America, and that was a political one. In the old days, before the war, political parties in America were divided into Democrats and Republicans, and the Democrats relied for success on the Irish vote in the State of New York. Naturally, during that time the Republicans looked upon the Irish as their natural enemies. The antipathy of the Irish to the negro was so great that this was certain to procure for them the antipathy of the Abolitionists. If there was anything which an Irishman hated more than an Anglo-Saxon it was a negro, and the result was that when at the end of the war the Democratic party became extinct, the Irish, who would have had the sympathy of the Democrats if their party succeeded, were deprived of those sympathies, but retained the hostility of the Republicans, so that for political reasons they were without the sympathy of any portion of the Americans. The want of success in New York had been so great that the rival camps had transferred the theatre of their operations to the rural districts, and were literally "starring in the
  1048
  provinces. "The estimate in which the movement was held might be gathered from an extract which he would read to the House from an American paper—
  "The decline from heroic tragedy to the moat stupid of burlesques during the internecine war in this city between the Head Centre and the Senate has been duly recorded. The ridiculous force is over, the smoke has cleared away, the parties themselves have become indifferent or weary, and the whole thing is as flat and uninteresting as a wake without whisky. By the new tactics the grand campaign for the liberation of Ireland is transferred from this city to the rural regions. A dozen imitators of Peter the Hermit are abroad and sounding the 'hewgag.' The American Continent (except Canada) is to be aroused, and in less than no time the Queen's minions from Cork to Coleraine, and from Dublin to Galway, are to skedaddle, leaving Mr. Chief Executive Stephens at liberty to creep from his hiding-place under the blarney stone, hoist the 'sunburst,' and proclaim at last the Republic of Ireland. But thus far the new tactics have not worked quite up to expectation. There is a Corsican feud—a regular vendetta—between the Head Centre faction and the Senate faction. If a senatorian undertakes to lecture, a Head Cen-treite is on his track like a bloodhound, and before he has time to say 'Fellow-citizens,' the other side puts in an appearance and the fun commences. The enthusiastic hearers at once take sides. Irishmen never hesitate to do that much, no matter what the question, and the lecturer stands as much chance of being heard as a Puritan psalm-singer at Donnybrook Fair. This was the case the other day at Troy, where the lecturing crusade was inaugurated. The doors were hardly opened before the Milesian blood was at fever heat, and in default of a regiment or two of Life Guards to wallop, the boys went at each other. They did not hear the lecture, but they did enjoy the coveted luxury of a regular hulla-balloo, such as would have done honour to Tipperary in its best days. This ridiculous spectacle will doubtless be witnessed in most of our large towns, the squabbles of the O'Mahonians and the Senate being, thank fortune, transferred from this city to the provinces."
  That being the estimation in which this movement was held in America, we should look as ridiculous as the Fenians themselves if we were to make remonstrances which would only excite wonder and astonishment among the American people at the Fenian power on this side of the Atlantic in which the Americans did not believe at present. Supposing, however, that this were not the ease, there were other reasons why we ought not to remonatrate with the United States. It would be better to allay old animosities than excite new ones. The Americans were extremely anxious, after the strong language which had not unnaturally been used during the progress of the war, to let the feeling against this country subside of itself; but if we were

  1049
  continually finding out reasons why we should urge upon them strong expressions of sympathy with this country at a time when they wished to be let alone, we should certainly do no good. Possibly, indeed, an absolutely bad effect might be produced. In the first place, the American Secretary of State could certainly point to episodes in our history almost exactly parallel to what was now taking place in America. He (Mr. Oliphant) himself had once been asked to subscribe money for some persons whose avowed object was to kick out of his throne the King of Naples, with whom this country was on friendly terms. He had also seen a Garibaldian legion marching through the streets of Liverpool to the point of embarkation, whence they were openly and notoriously going to fight against a Sovereign with whom we were at peace. Those who lived in glass houses ought not to throw stones, and though, perhaps, episodes might have occurred in America which it might be difficult, under a strict interpretation of International Law, for the Government of that country to justify, still it would be in the last degree inexpedient to raise at this moment any particular points. He had a very strong reason for saying—and he did not think he was overstepping the bounds of confidence in saying—that the rupture which had been made in the Fenian body was duo to the action of the American Government. Certain it was that we owed a great deal to that rupture, the result of which had been that the great Fenian organization was split into two factions, so that when we wanted to know what Roberts was doing we had only to apply to O'Mahoney, and when we wanted to know what O'Mahoney was doing we had only to apply to Roberts. But, though he thought that remonstrances of the nature described by the hon. Member for Stockport would be injudicious, he was of opinion that representations of another kind might be made, and with great effect, to the American Government. On looking at the origin and policy of Fenianism, it was not difficult to ascertain what those representations ought to be. It was perfectly true that Fenianism had its origin in America, but then it should be borne in mind that it originated out of the policy pursued by this country towards America. In other words, if there were no outstanding claims between England and America Fenianism would cease to exist. The reason why it existed at all was this. When we recognized the South as belligerents,
  1050
  and when certain cruisers preyed upon the commerce of America, the whole American people, in a very natural ebullition of feeling, said that if a rising were to take place in Ireland or India they would immediately recognize the insurgents as belligerents and allow cruisers to go out. They never expected such a thing would happen, but the suggestion took root in the minds of Irishmen, who thought the American people had entirely committed themselves to this idea, and they tried to embroil the two countries by exciting a movement in Ireland, and putting the American people to the test as to whether they would stand by the expressions which they had used in the heat of the war. However, whether this was so or not, any representation tending to allay the feeling of irritation which existed in America on account of outstanding claims would also tend to defeat the Fenian schemes. It was, therefore, of the utmost consequence to prevent the possibility of an armed insurrection in Ireland placing the people of America under the necessity of standing by the words which they had repeatedly uttered. The American people might bring great pressure to bear upon the Government, and the result might possibly be that we should find Fenian vessels of war cruising like the Alabama, and putting us to the greatest inconvenience. He thought, therefore, that the time had now arrived when we might make representations to the American Government with reference to the outstanding claims between the two countries; and it might perhaps be expedient to adopt a suggestion which had been made earlier in the evening, that a conference should be held to inquire into the present defective condition of International Maritime Laws in which those claims might very properly be entertained. If the Neutrality Laws were not altered, we should be constantly liable to disagreeable questions, such as were now arising between Chili and Peru and Spain. No settlement of the difficult questions which were sure to arise between this country and America could take place so long as laws respecting them were in force which were enacted fifty years ago, and had reference solely to the state of things which existed before the invention of steam vessels. As long as such antiquated laws existed, and as long as no attempts were made to adjust them to the present state of things, differences would be constantly springing

  1051
  up between the two countries. To avert such a calamity it would be necessary to modify the laws in question, and that could only be done with the concurrence of the American Government, and we could not hope to obtain that concurrence without admitting that the modifications proposed should have to some extent a retrospective effect. It might be said that it was inconsistent with our honour to make a proposal on the subject to the American Government; but in his judgment it would be in no way inconsistent with the honour and dignity of this country to repair, as far as possible, injuries inflicted by a law which we could not at the time alter in consequence of our neutral position, but which we were willing to alter now. He would not detain the House any longer, but would conclude by repeating that he felt it of the utmost importance that the remonstrances suggested by the hon. Gentleman should not be made.
  MR. TOEKEsaid, he was glad to hear the hon. Gentleman admit, at the conclusion of his speech, the grave character of a question which at the beginning of it he had treated in too jocular a manner. He was unable, however, to agree with the hon. Gentleman that the re-opening of all the complicated questions which arose during the late war would be the best course for the Government to adopt for bringing about the kindly feeling which he hoped would be maintained by both countries. It was a misfortune that Irish affairs were always viewed under two opposite aspects. Only a few days ago, for instance, the House was in solemn conclave on the course proposed to be adopted by the Government in consequence of the serious emergencies which had arisen in Ireland. To-night, on the contrary, the House had been told that the matter was treated in America as a matter of jest, and that it was wrong to regard the subject as one which Her Majesty's Government could legitimately bring under the notice of the Government of the United States. For his own part, he thought that the hon. Member for Stockport had done great service in bringing this question before the House. He thought, moreover, that the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had avoided the real question. No want of faith was imputed to the American Government; no blame or breach of national obligation was charged upon them; but what the hon.
  1052
  Gentleman had said was that this Fenian organization had existed for years in America, had raised large sums of money, manufactured and exported large quantities of arms and ammunition, and sent subsidized agents to this country to excite sedition. The hon. Gentleman had asked why we should be afraid of urging upon the American Government the importance of giving their attention to this state of things. We had a large diplomatic establishment in foreign countries, and the matter must long ago have been communicated to the Government. They could not be the only persons ignorant of it. He sincerely hoped, now that the serious attention of the Government had been called to the facts, the House would soon have the satisfaction of hearing that some action had been taken in reference to this subject.
  MR. WALPOLE: Sir, I shall address only a few words to the House upon the present occasion, for I have been so deeply impressed with the last observation which fell from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that I hope the House will not prosecute the discussion. There are now two grave propositions before the House. One of them, emanating from the hon. Gentleman opposite, calls upon the Government to discuss one of the most difficult international questions which can be conceived—namely, what is to be the conduct of different countries with regard to the Foreign Enlistment Act. The other, brought forward by the hon. Member for Stockport, without any specific notice, drawing the attention of the Government to the particular question to be considered, has reference to the representations to be made to a friendly Power and ally with regard to its relations with this country. I regret to see questions so grave, so difficult, and so embarrassing, nay, questions which may involve this country in a controversy the end of which none can foresee, brought forward on a Motion for going into Committee of Supply, and I think that, while the House has an undoubted right to debate with perfect freedom any question that may be brought before it, it will be advisable under the circumstances not to continue the present discussion. I will only add that a grave matter like this, affecting Ireland and our relations with the United States of America, ought to be brought before the House upon a specific Motion, after due notice has been given to the Government. I hope the House will

  1053
  not prosecute this discussion further, as a decision cannot now be arrived at which would give satisfaction to the House and to the country.
  MR. THOMAS HUGHESsaid, no Member of the House had been more delighted to hear the course the discussion had taken than himself. The tone that had been taken by the Government and by all the hon. Gentlemen who had spoken, showed that the House was most sincerely and most deeply anxious to maintain friendly relations with the United States of America. The hon. and learned Gentleman (the Attorney General) in the earlier part of the debate, had said, in speaking of the question of arbitration in reference to the Alabama and other vessels that went out from this country during the American war, that there were two reasons which, in his opinion, prevented the country from going to arbitration. The first reason was that nations must not compromise their honour, and the hon. and learned Gentleman said that dishonour might have been imputed to this country if we had gone to arbitration. He (Mr. Hughes) thought he had a right to ask why? If the Government had been right in their contention there could have been no dishonour in taking that course. He felt very strongly upon that point. It was all very well to say that it was with nations as it was with individuals, that they were the guardians of their own honour, but even in the days when duelling flourished, and men were apparently more jealous of their honour, the duellists had seconds who formed a court of arbitration to which the principals went, before going to the great argument arbitrium. The second of the hon. and learned Gentleman's reasons was that it would have been a dangerous precedent if the Government had held themselves responsible for the acts of subjects which could not have been prevented. In that, however, the learned Attorney General begged the whole question, which was whether or not these acts could have been prevented. The American people said that they could have been, and though he did not say that he agreed with them, as he thought it very probable that those acts could not have been prevented, still he thought it would have been better if the matter had gone before an impartial tribunal, so that it might have been proved whether prevention could have been applied or not. He did not wonder at the soreness of the Americans, or at their say-
  1054
  ing that the lion's paw was the only law with John Bull. That whether right or wrong we would have our own way, and would not submit to an impartial tribunal. It had been said that the American Government had treated France and Spain in a very different manner to that in which they had treated this country, and he believed that to have been the case, but France and Spain had treated America in a different manner from that pursued by this country, and had allowed no Alabamas to leave their shores. [Cries of" Oh, oh !"] Hon. Gentlemen might say "Oh, oh !" but he had, he believed, taken more trouble to understand America than most Gentlemen in that House. He could not see what reason we had to refuse to go to arbitration, though he refrained from expressing his opinion as to whether that tribunal would decide we were right or wrong. The complaint of America was simply this, that we somehow or another, whether rightly or wrongly, allowed certain vessels to escape from our ports, and to prey upon their commerce, and when they asked us for an impartial tribunal of arbitration we refused it.

REGISTRY OF DEEDS OFFICE (IRELAND).—QUESTION.
MR. DILLONasked Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether it does not appear by a Parliamentary Return of July 1864, No. 557, that between the 31st day of May 1830, and the 31st day of May 1864, the Surplus Fees of the Registry of Deeds Office (Ireland), lodged to the credit of the Consolidated Fund, amount to £41,710 8a. 7d., of which sum (as appears by the same Return) only £800 has been allocated by the Treasury for the purposes of the Office, leaving a balance of £'40,910 8s. 7d.; whether, having regard to the 35th section of 2 & 3 Will. 4 c. 87, the above mentioned appropriation of such Surplus Fees is not contrary to law; and, whether there is any objection to lay upon the table Copies of any Memorials addressed, during the last three years, by the Corporation of Dublin, or by any other public bodies or individuals in Ireland, to the Lords of the Treasury, in relation to the Surplus Fees of said Office, and the application thereof? He said, he respectfully submitted that this sum of £40,000, Irish money, had strayed away into the Consolidated Fund, and was now appropriated contrary to law, and ought to be restored to Ireland.
MR. CHILDERSsaid, the statement of the hon. Gentleman was, on the whole, correct. During the last thirty-three years the difference between the amount of fees received in the Registry Office and the expenses of that office somewhat exceeded £40,000—that is to say, the fees had amounted to more than £13,000, while the expenses were about £12,000 per annum. Now, on an average of thirty-three years, a little more than £1,000 a year was not a very large sum, and would not be enough to make it prudent or practicable for the Treasury to reduce the fees. If they did so, there would not be enough in many years to pay the salaries of the officers of the court. Further, though on the average there had been a surplus for the last thirty-three years, latterly that surplus had ceased, and if the hon. Gentleman would refer to the Estimates of last year and of this he would find that the fees at present were not sufficient to meet the expenses of the court. Meanwhile, an Act of Parliament had been passed, under which the whole of the fees went into the Exchequer, and the expenses of the court were defrayed in the usual way by the Votes of that House. When the hon. Member talked over the surplus having strayed away from Ireland into the Consolidated Fund, he forgot that it was paid into the Consolidated Fund of Great Britain and Ireland; and he (Mr. Childers) feared that if an account were taken on this basis Ireland would be found largely indebted to the Consolidated Fund for deficiencies, and for repayments excused.

SUPPLY—MARRIAGE PORTION OF THE PRINCESS HELENA.
Order for Committee read; Her Majesty's Message [20th February] relative to the Marriage of the Princess Helena referred; considered in Committee.
(In the Committee.)
THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER: Sir, I rise for the purpose of moving that the sum of £30,000 be granted to Her Majesty for the marriage portion of the Princess Helena Augusta Victoria, and I must accompany this Resolution by a very few words for the purpose of obviating a misapprehension which might possibly, for want of care, have grown out of language used by me yesterday with regard to the subject of the annuity of the Princess Helena. I pointed out to the Committee, as was no more than just, that the
1056
Princess Helena had been called upon to perform a very peculiar part, which had been performed in the most admirable manner, during the dark and trying time of the life of the Queen. I had then in my mind the years that have elapsed since the lamented death of the Prince Consort, but I ought to have noticed at the time—it was an inaccuracy not to do so—that several months passed before the Princess Helena found herself in the position of the eldest unmarried daughter of Her Majesty, and that during these months that position was filled by the Princess Alice, now the Princess Louis of Hesse, who afforded to the Queen the same solace and support, with the utmost devotion of mind and heart, which subsequently, after the marriage of the Princess Alice, were afforded by the Princess Helena. It remains perfectly true that during the greater portion of the time the Princess Helena has filled that position, but I was anxious to remove any misapprehension which might be due to the language which I used.
Resolution agreed to:—£30,000, Marriage Portion of Princess Helena.
Resolution to be reported on Monday next.

PRINCESS HELENA AND PRINCE ALFRED.

  MESSAGES FROM HER MAJESTY.
  Resolutions [February 22] reported. Resolutions agreed to.
  Bill on First Resolution ordered to be brought in by Mr. DODSON, Mr. CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, and Sir GEORGE GREY.
  Bill on Second Resolution ordered to be brought in by Mr. DODSON, Mr. CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER, and Sir GEORGE GREY.

CATTLE PLAGUE BILL— [BILL 32.]
(Mr. Hunt, Mr. Holland, Mr. Banks Stanhope, and Sir James Fergusson.)
CATTLE PLAGUE BILL— [BILL 32.]

  CONSIDERED AS AMENDED.
  [The Bill having been Committed, Recommitted, and Considered as Amended, without having been re-printed, great difficulty has been experienced in following out the Motions for Amendments, particularly those of which no Notice had been given. When a Clause has been agreed to, with or without Amendment, the small figures added refer to the No. of the corresponding Clause in the re-print of the Bill No. 32.]
  Bill, as amended, considered.
  MR. LOCKE KING MR. LOCKE KING moved to leave out Clause 21, and insert the following clause:—
  "Any calf, if sound, not being more than twenty-one days old, may, notwithstanding anything in this Act, he moved with a licence on any public highway from any place where the same shall have been dropped to any other place, not being more than ten miles from such place, upon a bona fide purchase of the same by the occupier of the place to which the same shall be so removed."
  Clause brought up, and read the first time.
  Motion made, and Question, "That the said clause be now read a second time," put, and negatived.
  New Clause (Penalty on moving Contrary to Act,)—(Mr. Hunt,)—agreed to, and added to the Bill. [cl. 14.]
  MR. BAKING MR. BAKING moved the following clause:—
  "When by any Act of Parliament it is enacted that any payment, compensation, or allowance shall or may be made by any local authority to any owner or keeper of cattle slaughtered under or in pursuance of any direction or power in any such Act contained, such enactment shall not extend or apply to the case of cattle arriving by sea at any port within twenty-four hours of such arrival."
  Clause brought up, and read the first time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the said clause be now read a second time."
  GENERAL DUNNEopposed the clause. He objected to Irish cattle being dealt with in the same manner as cattle imported from abroad as far as regarded compensation, while the owners of the latter cattle were allowed advantages not given to those of the former.
  COLONEL GREVILLEreminded the hon. Gentleman the Under Secretary that the cattle disease had not appeared in Ireland.
  MR. FLEMINGsuggested that on the arrival in this country of cattle from Ireland or abroad the number of living animals should be compared with the number shipped, and if it was found that any animal had died on the passage all the remaining ones should be destroyed.
  Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause withdrawn.
  MR. BARING MR. BARING moved the following clause:?—
  "From and after the passing of this Act any Officer of Customs shall seize any meat imported or brought into the United Kingdom which is unfit for human food, or likely to spread the
  1058
  cattle plague, or any other disease, and shall seize all hides, hoofs, horns, and other parts of any animal which may be found likely to spread such plague or disease; and such meat, hides, hoofs, horns, and other parts of any animal shall, after seizure thereof, be destroyed in such manner as the Commissioners of Customs may direct."
  Clause agreed to, and added to the Bill. [cl. 52.]
  VISCOUNT CRANBOURNEcalled attention to the fact that in the preamble to the Bill a number of symptoms were set forth as those by which an animal suffering from cattle plague might be recognized. From the construction of the clause it might be held that as this was a penal Act no animal could be slaughtered under it unless it had all those symptoms. He therefore moved that those words should be omitted from the preamble.
  Words struck out.
  MR. BARING MR. BARING moved to insert a new clause (Evidence of Orders).
  MR. WALPOLEsaid, that under the former Act of Parliament it had been found necessary to indemnify all parties who had acted under the Orders in Council, and it would be very desirable to introduce some clause specifying the kind of Orders they should pass, because if they should pass Orders in Council as extensive as those now in force, they might have to come to Parliament again for an indemnity.
  MR. BARINGsaid, he was quite aware of the importance of the point to which the right hon. Gentleman had referred.
  Clause agreed to, and added to the Bill.
  [cl. 5.]
  On Motion that the Bill be read a third time,
  SIR GEORGE GREYsaid, he thought it would be found impossible to apply any one rule to various parts of the country, because the local authority and other circumstances differed so much in character; and he feared that the Bill would in consequence tend to spread the disease rather than check it.
  MR. HUNTremarked that if the right hon. Gentleman held the opinion he expressed it was a pity he had allowed the Bill to pass.
  MR. DALGLISHsaid, the Bill had been passed very hastily, and he feared it would prove a crude measure in many respects.
  SIR JAMES FERGUSSONobserved, that the Bill had been very carefully considered and passed in opposition to the

  1059
  Government measure. He was sure the thanks of the House and country were due to his hon. Friend (Mr. Hunt) for the trouble he had taken in respect of the matter. He felt convinced the measure would not be found ineffectual for its object.
  Bill read the third time, and passed; to be printed. [Bill 34.]

MONUMENT TO VISCOUNT PALMERSTON.
Resolution [February 22] reported.
Resolution agreed to, Nemine Gontradicente:—To be presented by Privy Councillors.

MONUMENT TO VISCOUNT PALMERSTON.

  CATTLE DISEASES (IRELAND) BILL
  Considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)
  Resolved, That the Chairman be directed to more the House, that leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Law relating to Contagious Diseases amongst Cattle and other Animals in Ireland.
  Resolution reported:—Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. ATTORNEY GENERAL for IRELAND, Mr. SOLICITOR GENERAL for IRELAND, and Sir GEORGE GREY.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 37.]

  PUBLIC COMPANIES BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. DARBY GRIFFITH, Bill to alter and improve the Law relating to voting in Public Companies, ordered to be brought in by Mr. DARBY GRIFFITH and Mr. ROBERT TORRENS.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 35.]

  HOP TRADE BILL.
  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 amend an Act of the fifty-fourth year of King George the Third, chapter one hundred and twenty-three, to prevent Frauds and Abuses in the Trade of Hops.
  Resolution reported:—Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. HUDDLESTON, Sir BROOK BRIDGES, and Sir EDWARD DERING.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 36.]

  ROCHDALE VICARAGE BILL.
  On Motion of Mr. WALPOLE, Bill for vesting the glebe lands of the Vicarage of Rochdale, in the county of Lancaster, in the Ecclesiastical Commissioners for England, and for making provision for the endowment of the said Vicarage in lieu thereof, and for the promotion of other ecclesiastical purposes connected therewith, ordered to be brought in by Mr. WALPOLE and Mr. BOUVERIE.
  Bill presented, and read the first time. [Bill 38.]

  MERCHANT SHIPPING ACT (1854) AMENDMENT BILL.
  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 amend" The Merchant Shipping Act, 1854."
  Resolution reported:—Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. MILNER GIBSON and Lord CLARENCE PAGET.
  House adjourned at half after One o'clock till Monday next.