Lords Sitting of 4 June 1855

MINUTES.
Took the Oaths.—The Bishop of Killaloe, Kilfenora, Clonfert, and Kilmacduagh.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1a Militia (No. 2); Personal Estates of Intestates.
2a Roman Catholic Charities; Weights and Measures.
Reported.—Newspaper Stamp Duties.

THE "MEDWAY" TRANSPORT— QUESTION.
THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGHwished to ask the Secretary of War whether he had received any information in detail with respect to the manner in which sixty-five horses were lost on board the Medway, and several so much injured that they were obliged to be sent on shore when the ship arrived at Gibraltar? He was induced to put that question because he had seen a gentleman who had been on board the Medway before she sailed, and who, on his return to town expressed his anticipation of some disaster, from the manner in which the horses were packed on deck, unless the vessel should have fair weather the whole way to Balaklava. So far from that, however, she encountered a severe gale in the Bay of Biscay, and hence the great loss of animals. The plan of placing the horses on deck was one which should never be adopted, except in cases of necessity—never, certainly, on account of mere economy. In the present case, the horses were placed under a shed on deck, and were so closely packed that the man whose duty it was to arrange the slings was obliged to lie down at full length on the backs of the animals. He understood that the shed gave way bodily during the gale, which happened to be a very severe one; the deck was entirely crowded with horses, dead, dying, or fighting; and if any accident had occurred to the machinery, the vessel would probably have been lost. The matter was a very serious one, and he hoped it would receive the attention of the noble Lord.
LORD PANMUREsaid, he had received information with reference to the accident that had taken place on board the Medway, and was able to state that the origin of that accident was a very violent gale—it could hardly be called a gale, it was rather a hurricane—which came on unexpectedly. He did not think he could do better than read a portion of a letter which he had received from the admiral at Gibraltar on the subject; but, before doing so, he wished to observe that in sending out horses to the seat of war at this time of the year, that they were not only justified in availing themselves of every possible means of sending horses to the seat of war, but, at this period of the year, there was every reason to expect that the weather would be such as to justify them in putting them upon the deck

1309
of a steamer, though not perhaps of a sailing vessel, under proper protection. With reference to the Medway, the letter from the Admiral, dated Gibraltar, May 22, gave the following statement—
"In my letter of the 20th instant, by the Alice, I had the honour to report, for the information of their Lordships, the arrival of the steam transport Medway, which put in here owing to the loss of horses, occasioned by a very violent gale on the 13th and 14th instant. A case of small-
pox having broken out on board, it was necessary to summon a Board of Health and to take measures for landing the sick man, isolating him from the rest of the garrison. In consequence she did not get pratique until 2.30 p.m. on the 20th. I went on board shortly afterwards, and put every carpenter I could procure at the disposal of the captain, to make good the damage that had occurred. In the meantime the military authorities ordered several wounded horses to be landed and preparations made for the embarkation, on the following morning, of mules to replace those killed, and landed in all, I believe, about eighty. In going over the ship with the captain I was astonished at the little comparative damage done to the fittings, considering the gale which was described to me, and the signs of which were evident from the way the paddle-boxes were stove in. It seems that on one side of the quarter-deck nearly the whole framework had fetched way, but had been stopped by the combings of the hatchways. This was effectually remedied by large cleats nailed to the deck, and the carpenters were ordered to repair whatever was pointed out by the captain and chief officer."
All he could say in addition was, that the greatest care was taken in all cases to secure the safety of the animals sent to the Crimea, and that at the present season of the year such an event as a heavy gale could not have been anticipated.

RIGHTS OF NEUTRALS—TRADE WITH RUSSIA—QUESTION.
THE EARL OF ALBEMARLEwished to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they had any objection to state the exact words which Captain Watson of the Impérieuse, addressed to the authorities of Port Baltic in announcing the blockade of that port on the 28th of April of this year; and also to ask whether the Russian Government were warranted in the assertion which they were supposed to have made, that the Government of England had now renounced the principle adopted a year ago, that the flag covered the cargo? He fully anticipated what the answer would be, and the explanations which he should receive from the Government. He assumed, as a matter of course, that the answer would be, that the Government did adhere to the
1310
precise terms of the Order in Council dated the 15th of April, 1854, waiving the right of seizing enemies' property in neutral vessels, unless it was contraband of war. Although he anticipated that Her Majesty's Government would give such assurances as would be satisfactory to the neutral Powers, he thought it was also advisable the neutral Powers should understand that there was in that House a nearly unanimous—if not an entirely unanimous—opinion on the subject, and were not prepared to sanction any departure from the principle of last year. When, about a fortnight ago, he had moved certain Resolutions with the object of putting an end to trade with Russia, he had been very much astonished to hear three Members of Her Majesty's Government—the President of the Board of Trade, the Lord President of the Council, and the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs—attribute to him a wish to enforce that very right of blockade which the Russian Government now attributed to England. He was utterly astonished when he heard such a desire imputed to him, and he thought that in the hurry of debate he might have said what he did not mean to say; but in the first newspaper he saw the next morning he found the words he used were, "Neutral flags should make neutral cargoes;" and the Resolutions he had proposed did not contemplate directly or indirectly any interference whatever with neutral Powers. As the statement he was then making would probably find its way to the public, and would come to the knowledge of the neutral Powers, he might observe that he believed he spoke the unanimous—or the almost unanimous—opinion of their Lordships, when he said that they thought the Americans were perfectly justified in claiming that a neutral flag should protect a neutral cargo; and he was only at issue with Her Majesty's Government on this question, because they had done ungraciously and unwillingly what he thought they ought to have done readily and unhesitatingly. He trusted, now that two great Powers of Europe had expressed their intention on the subject in an unequivocal manner, that the course they had resolved to adopt would henceforth become part and parcel of the law of nations. In consequence of the intention which had been attributed to him by Members of Her Majesty's Government, a State paper which had been issued by the Russian Government, and which purported to

1311
come from the office of M. de Nesselrode, had given an inaccurate representation of the proposition he had submitted to their Lordships, and he (the Earl of Albemarle) thought it was desirable that on a subject of so much importance a clear understanding should be established.
EARL GRANVILLEdid not quite understand why the noble Earl had departed in the present instance from the usual courtesy in giving notice beforehand of his intention to bring an important question under the notice of the House. He was happy, however, to inform their Lordships that there was no foundation in anything said by Captain Watson, or by any officer under his command, to warrant the interpretation given of it by the Russian Government. No such question was asked and no such answer was given as those stated in the Russian circular.
THE EARL OF HARROWBYsaid, he might as well state to their Lordships the exact circumstances as they occurred. The first lieutenant of the Impérieuse was sent into Port Baltic to see what ships were loaded and what were unloaded, in order that those only which were loaded at the time might be permitted to leave with their cargoes, and that no additional goods might be taken on board. He went over the harbour with the Governor, and found two vessels loaded. He never inquired to whom the property belonged, but merely said that those vessels, being loaded, might go out; adding that such vessels as might be loaded after the date of his visit would not be allowed to leave the port. The Governor asked him if some small Russian fishing vessels which were in the harbour might go out. His answer was, "We have never interfered with these small fishing vessels, which may go out as before." He (the Earl of Harrowby) was able to assure their Lordships that no such question was addressed to Captain Watson or his first lieutenant as that put into the mouth of the Russian Governor by Count Nesselrode, and there was no foundation whatever for the statements of the Russian Government.

ROMAN CATHOLIC CHARITIES BILL.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR, in moving the second reading of the Bill, stated the circumstances under which it was introduced. Before the passing of the Roman Catholic Relief Act the foundation of charities belonging to that body was illegal, and the consequence was that Roman Catholic
1312
charitable institutions were formed and conducted in secret. The Relief Act passed in 1829, but it still remained doubtful whether charities already existing, or charities which might afterwards be founded, would be valid or not. At the instance of Lord Brougham, an Act—the 2 & 3 Will. IV.—was passed, making it lawful to create charities for Roman Catholics; but the question was raised soon after, whether that Act was or was not retrospective in its operation. Lord Brougham thought it was; and Lord Cottenham, upon the question being raised before him in the Court of Chancery, acted upon that view, without, however, expressing any opinion of his own. The question was afterwards raised in Ireland, and great doubt existed as to whether the Act was retrospective. He must own that he thought it was doubtful whether it was retrospective, and whether it did apply to charities not registered according to the provisions of the Mortmain Act. When the Charitable Trusts Act passed two years ago, there was a special provision to the effect that it should not apply to Roman Catholic charities for the space of two years. It now became necessary to legislate on the subject; and what he proposed was simply to put the Roman Catholic charities upon a footing as nearly as possible analogous to that of those Dissenting charities which stood in the same situation with regard to the law about ten years ago. What Parliament enacted in 1844 was, that Dissenting charities, which were then illegal, should be held as valid as if they had been founded subsequent to the removal of the disabilities. That was substantially what the present Bill proposed. It enacted that all Roman Catholic charities which would be valid if they had been created since the Act of 1832 should be now valid, although they were invalid at the time of their foundation.
LORD CAMPBELLwas afraid that the words, "or other charitable purposes," introduced into one of the clauses of the Bill, were too extensive, and might give a legal sanction to institutions of an objectionable nature.
THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, that as the Bill applied only to such charities as might be legally created under the Act of 1832, there was no ground for the apprehensions of his noble and learned Friend.
THE EARL OF DERBYdesired to know whether the Bill would not set aside the

1313
provisions of the Mortmain Act with respect to mortgages upon land?
THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, it would not, although it of course applied to charities which in no case could have been enrolled under the Mortmain Act, they being void in law.
Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the whole House on Friday next.
House adjourned till To-morrow.