Lords Sitting of 26 July 1858

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS.—1a Militia Pay; Consolidated Fund (Appropriation); Metropolis Local Management Act Amendment; Drafts on Bankers Law Amendment; Militia (Service Abroad) Act Continuance; Militia Act Continuance (No. 2); Corrupt Practices Prevention Act Continuance; Civil Bills, &c. (Ireland) Act Amendment; Judgments (Ireland) Act Amendment; New Writs.
2a Cornwall Submarine Mines; Friendly Societies Act Amendment; Government of New Caledonia; Clerk of Petty Sessions (Ireland).
3a Four Courts (Dublin) Extension; Inclosure of Lands; Sheep, &c., Contagious Diseases Prevention; Turnpike Acts Continuance; Vaccination (Ireland); Police (Scotland) Act Amendment; Medical Practitioners; Public Health.

ATLANTIC TELEGRAPH COMPANY BILL.

  THIRD READING. DEBATE RESUMED.
  Further Debate, on Amendment moved on Third Reading, resumed (according to Order).
  THE EARL OF DERBYbegged to remind their Lordships that on Friday last he had proposed an Amendment, extending the time at which the Government would be entitled to take possession of the wires from twenty-five to fifty years; but that in consequence of some objection by Lord Redesdale the matter was postponed until to-day. He had since made inquiries and had found that the alteration to be necessary in order to enable the arrangement between the United States Government and the Company to be carried into effect. He would therefore move, to agree to the said Amendment.
  Lord REDESDALE and Lord STANLEY of ALDERLEYrepeated their objections to the arrangement.
  Motion agreed to with an Amendment; Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.

CORNWALL SUBMARINE MINES BILL.

  SECOND READING.
  Standing Order No. 179. Section 4, considered (according to Order) and dispensed with.
  THE DUKE OF NEWCASTLE THE DUKE OF NEWCASTLE moved the second reading of this Bill, the object of which was to carry into effect an arbitration of Sir John Patteson, which defines the respective rights of the Crown and of the Duchy of Cornwall to the lands between high and low-water mark.
  LORD WYNFORDhoped that some guarantee would be given that, in any claim hereafter on the part of the Crown to land between high and low-water mark, this arbitration should not be referred to as a precedent.
  THE DUKE OF NEWCASTLEsaid, he could give no such guarantee on behalf either of the present or any future Government. All he could say was there was nothing in the Bill to affect the rights of anybody as to property out of the county of Cornwall. Two parties had claimed certain rights as to minerals on the shore, the Crown and the Duchy of Cornwall, and this Bill would vest the rights in question in the Duchy of Cornwall. As to third parties, if anybody claimed rights adverse to those two, the Bill pointed out whom he was to sue.
  LORD CRANWORTHsaid, it amounted merely to a private arrangement between the Crown and the Duchy of Cornwall, and the Bill clearly saved the rights of all other parties.
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the whole House To-morrow.

RIGHT OF VISITATION.—QUESTION.
LORD LYNDHURST, in rising to put the Question of which he had given notice to the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs with respect to the right of visit, said, your Lordships, no doubt, have most of you read a speech which was made by Mr. Dallas, the American Minister, a short time since, at a meeting of his fellow-subjects, to celebrate the anniversary of American Independence. On that occasion the hon. Gentleman stated that the question of the right of visiting American vessels in time of peace on the high seas had been finally settled. This is a subject, my Lords, of so much importance and such deep interest that it is material that we should receive a distinct and precise account of the terms on which that settlement is based; and I have therefore given notice of a question which I Intend to propose to my noble Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, in order that he may give us some explanation on the sub-

2079
ject to which I have referred. Many persons—perhaps I ought not to say "many persons," but several persons, and those in a high political position—appear to think that that proceeding was not justified, and that in point of fact we have surrendered a most valuable and important right. The answer which I make to that is, that we have surrendered no right, for that, in point of fact, no such right as that which is contended for has ever existed. We have, my Lords, abandoned the assumption of a right, and in doing so we have, I think, acted justly, prudently, and wisely. Now, my Lords, with your permission, I shall proceed to make a few observations upon the general question, and to refer to some of the most eminent authorities on the subject; but I assure you that I should not have troubled you were it not that I think it is of great importance that this question should be distinctly and finally understood and settled. The first proposition which I state is this:—That in no writer on international law has that right ever been asserted; and, in the next place, that there is no decision of any court of justice having jurisdiction to decide such questions in which that right has been admitted. I wish, in making this assertion, to fortify myself by some authorities; and I cannot quote a higher or a better English authority than that of Lord Stowell, who states distinctly, in the words which I am about to read—in conformity with what I have stated—that no such right has ever been asserted by any competent authority. His words are these:—
"I can find no authority that gives the right of interruption to the navigation of States in amity upon the high seas excepting that which the rights of war give to both belligerents against neutrals."
That is a distinct statement made by that noble and learned Lord. In addition, I beg leave to refer to Wheaton, the eminent American authority on international law, who states the proposition in these terms:—
"It is impossible to show a single passage in any institutional writer on public law, or the judgment of any court by which that law is administered, which will justify the exercise of such a right on the high seas in time of peace, independent of special compact."
So that your Lordships perceive that both on this side of the water and in America, by the best authorities and by the highest jurists, that right, in the passages to which I have referred, is controverted instead of being admitted. It has been agitated long
2080
between this country on the one side and America on the other. The eminent jurist on the other side of the water makes his statement and assertion; our corresponding authority on this side of the water makes his assertion; and those assertions directly and distinctly agree. For myself, my Lords, I have never been able to discover any principle of law or reason on which that right could be supported. I will refer again to the same high English authority—Lord Stowell—upon this subject, and you shall hear what he emphatically states with respect to it. That distinguished jurist says:—
"No nation can exercise the right of visitation and search on the high seas except on the belligerent claim. No such right has ever been claimed, nor can it be exercised, without the oppression of interrupting and harassing the real and lawful navigation of other countries, for the right, when it exists at all, is universal, and will extend to all countries. If I were to press the consideration further, it would be by stating the gigantic mischiefs which such a claim is likely to produce."
I may add, that another very high authority—the American Judge Storey—in the well known case of the Marianne and the Flora, expressed the same opinion in almost the same terms and in language as emphatic. So here again is a coincidence of authority between the two parties agitating the question—the authority on this side of the water corresponding exactly with the authority on the other. But I do not think it necessary to refer to any cases in support of the question I am considering; I will refer only to the principle on which the question rests. What is the rule with respect to the high seas and to the navigation of the high seas? All nations are equal upon the high seas? Whether they be strong and powerful, or weak and imbecile, all are on a footing of perfect equality. What is the position of a merchant ship on the high seas? A ship is part of the dominion of the country to which she belongs, and what right has the ship of one nation to interfere with the ship of any other nation, where the rights of both parties are equal? The principle is so clear and so distinct that it will not admit of the smallest doubt. I am unwilling on a question of this kind to refer to any arguments of my own, or to any authority which I can possess on the subject; but hear what is said by Lord Stowell with respect to the navigation of the high seas. His language is this:—
"All nations being equal all have an equal right to the uninterrupted use of the unappropriated

2081
parts of the ocean for their navigation. In places where no local authority exists, where the subjects of all States meet on a footing of entire equality and independence, no one State or any of its subjects has a right to assume or exercise authority over the subjects of another."
That is a confirmation of the doctrine which I have stated, that the principle on which this question is to be decided is the equality of all nations on the high seas. Admitting this principle, how can it be asserted that the ships of one nation can interfere in any way with the vessels of another? Then, having laid down this principle, the consideration next occurs that difficulties may arise out of frauds which may be practised on the high seas; and it is said that the flag of America may be assumed by another Power to cover the basest of purposes. But how can the act of a third power, or of the subjects of a third Power, by possibility affect any right existing on the part of the United States? Take this case:—By our treaty with Spain we have a right to visit and search Spanish vessels with a view to prevent the slave trade. But how can that agreement between us and Spain by any possibility affect the rights of America? Clearly in no way at all. But, then, what are our cruisers to do? They are placed in a most difficult position, because it is quite clear and plain, if one of our cruisers see a vessel bearing w the American flag, and have reason to believe that that flag is assumed, he must examine and inquire into her right to carry that flag as best he can. If the result should be to give him a strong suspicion that the vessel has no right to the flag that she bears, he may certainly visit her and have an examination of her papers, and if he then find that his suspicions are correct he may deal with her in the manner in which he would be justified in dealing with her according to the relations existing between England and the country to which she belongs. The American Government has no right to interfere in this case. The matter is entirely between the English cruiser and the vessel seized. But, if it should turn out that the vessel is an American, and has a right to use the flag suspected, the situation is this,—he must of course apologize for his acts and make ample compensation for any injury done. That is exactly the position in which the two countries are placed. The American Minister for Foreign Affairs thus states the case of the United States. He says:—
"If a police magistrate gives a warrant to a police officer to seize a particular person, the
2082
officer, if he does not know the person, will make inquiries before he ventures to execute the warrant, and should the result of his inquiries satisfy Min as to the identity of the individual he will execute the warrant. If his information turn out correct his proceedings are correct also but if it turn out that he has made a mistake and arrested the wrong man he must make ample compensation for the injury which he has done."
The two cases seem to me to be perfectly analogous. A distinction has been attempted to be drawn—for which I think there is no foundation—between the right of visit and the right of search. Visit and search are two words which are always placed together in our vocabulary of international law, but they express what is conveyed by a single term in foreign vocabularies "le droit de visite." What is the use of visiting if you can do nothing? How can a mere visit convey the information which you desire to obtain?—and the moment you call for an examination of the papers—the moment you ask a single question the visit becomes a search—so that the visit to a particular vessel for the purpose of inquiry, is in effect the exercise of a right comprehended in the words droit de visite. But suppose a party visits only in the strict sense of the word, what right, I ask, has any person to go on board a vessel to visit it without the consent of the master? The same principle applies that I have just laid down. Treaties have been entered into between England and foreign countries giving the right of visit. But why enter into such treaties if the right of visiting is a national right founded on international law? What took place in the year 1815 after the Treaty of Vienna? Lord Castlereagh applied to the French Government to establish some mutual system by which cruisers could visit the vessels of either country; but the Due de Richelieu replied, that France never would consent to a maritime police being established over her own subjects, except by persons belonging to her own country. I think I have now gone far enough to establish the position with which I started—that there is, in truth, no such thing as the right of visit. Whatever arrangement may have been made with the American Government, we have renounced no right that we ever possessed. It would be material, if possible, to adopt some plan by mutual understanding for verifying the flag, yet maintaining the integrity of the rights of both countries. I am told that some negotiation and some correspondence is going on for that end. It is a difficult question, and I hope it may

2083
be brought to a favourable termination. I conclude with what I stated at the beginning, that Her Majesty's Government were wise, prudent, and just in the course which they have pursued. To prosecute a claim which you cannot enforce consistently with law, or to make an attempt to enforce it which must lead to resistance, and which may afterwards lead to war, would be a most unwise and imprudent mode of proceeding. No war is so deplorable as a war founded on injustice. Before sitting down I must, in justice to the hon. Gentleman to whose statement I referred before, read to your Lordships the concluding words of his speech, because it is in complete accordance with the high character which he has always borne both in America and in this country where he acts as her representative. The hon. Gentleman said:—
"While I am able to announce to you this gratifying fact, I think it should be accompanied also by the assurance that the termination of that for which we have struggled for nearly half a century has been brought about with a degree of honourable candour and fair dealing on the part of the British Government deserving of every acknowledgment on our part."
That statement is in perfect unison with the excellent character of the hon. Gentleman to whom I have referred. My Lords, I thought it my duty to make these observations, and to bring this matter clearly before you, accompanied by the quotations which I have read—with which, no doubt, many of your Lordships are perfectly familiar—in order to afford an opportunity to any noble Lord to refute the positions which I have laid down if they are capable of refutation. The question which I wish to put to my noble Friend the Foreign Secretary is this,—whether he is prepared to lay on the table of the House the correspondence with the American Government with respect to the Right of Visitation?
THE EARL OF MALMESBURY:—My Lords, I have to thank my noble and learned Friend for having come forward, and, as I may say, made the occasion himself whereby he has given us an opportunity of hearing his opinion upon this very important subject. I think, my Lords, that that opinion must be of immense consequence and value both in Europe and in
America, when it becomes fully known. Indeed, I feel I may say that that opinion must finally settle the disputed point; and that if ever a similar question should be again mooted the opinion just expressed by my noble and learned Friend must be quoted with as great weight as my noble
2084
and learned Friend has quoted the authority of his great predecessor, Lord Stowell. It is with great pleasure that we have heard the views of my noble and learned Friend on this important subject, because they conform precisely to the opinion of the law officers of the Crown, whom we thought it our duty to consult before we sent any answer to the communications we received from the American Government. When we received General Cass's communication, which was addressed to Her Majesty's Government, we immediately consulted the law officers of the Crown, and they unanimously asserted that the international law in relation to this question was precisely as it has been just described by my noble and learned Friend. Upon that opinion Her Majesty's Government at once acted, and we frankly confessed that we have no legal claim to the right of visit and of search which has hitherto been assumed. Her Majesty's Government therefore abandoned both those claims; but at the same time they placed before the American Government the paramount necessity of agreeing upon the adoption of some instructions, perfectly identical in character, to be placed in the hands of the officers of both Governments,—and, indeed, in the hands of the officers of all maritime nations—by which all Powers should be ruled—so as for the future to avoid all obstruction to commerce; while at the same time the fraudulent use of national flags may be prevented. At all events, such instruction as would have the effect of saving us from quarrels arising out of the assertion of an assumed right. The negotiations have gone on thus far. Having given up, as I have said, the right of visit and of search, the American Government on their part have received our communications with equal frankness, and have stated to Her Majesty's Government they are ready to listen to and to consider any suggestions we may make to them with the view to the verification of the international flags. We have, my Lords, gone further than that; for we have made the same suggestions and offer to the Government of France. That Government has answered us in the same spirit, and in a manner which showed that they entirely appreciated the great importance of the question. My Lords, the Government of France have agreed to consider any proposition we shall make on the subject, and to suggest upon their part any proposition which they may consider

2085
to be useful or conducive to the ends we have all in view. Considering the enormous dimensions that commerce generally has assumed throughout the world at the present time—seeing as we do the sea covered with the ships of all nations—I say, my Lords, I do not think there can be any doubt of the necessity of establishing some sort of security against the fraudulent use of the national flags. Further than this our negotiations have not proceeded. Although it is most unusual, in the midst of negotiations to produce any of the correspondence on the subject, nevertheless Her Majesty's Government have no objection whatever to place in your Lordships' hands the correspondence that has taken place as far as it goes. Your Lordships will understand that we have gone no further than this—that we have abandoned the right of search and visit; and that the American Government have agreed to entertain and to consider any suggestion we may make to give security against the fraudulent use of the flags of either nation; and that the French Government are ready and anxious to assist us in our endeavours to attain the same object.
THE EARL OF ABERDEEN: My Lords, it happened to me, when formerly at the Foreign Office, to have to write a great many despatches upon this subject—more I hope than will ever fall to the lot of the noble Earl (the Earl of Malmesbury). But the correspondence which then took place left the question, as I supposed, completely settled, and, therefore, it was with great astonishment I heard of anything which could give rise to complaint on the part of the American Government. It was in the years 1842 and 1843 that a long correspondence took place between the American Minister of that time—Mr. Webster—and myself, and Mr. Webster declared over and over again to the late Lord Ashburton, that the matter was perfectly and satisfactorily settled. The noble Earl talks of referring to the Law Officers of the Crown as if this were a new question. The instructions under which our officers acted—and I suppose they are the same instructions now—were drawn up under the supervision of Dr. Lushington, Sir George Cockburn, and the Admiralty authorities of the day. They were communicated to Mr. Everett, the American Minister, and I never heard a word intimated against them. I was therefore astonished to hear my noble and learned Friend (Lord Lyndhurst) quote the statement of the highly respected American
2086
Minister who is now in this country, to the effect that we had given up frankly and finally the right of visit and search. Twenty years ago the Government of that day repudiated the assertion of any such right, and therefore, what the noble Earl the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs can have given up I am at a loss to understand. Any such right was given up then as frankly and finally as it possibly can be given up at this moment. After my noble and learned Friend's quoting the high authority of Lord Stowell, it may appear ludicrous in me to quote myself. At the same time, in order to show how the matter stood twenty years ago, I will just quote a note of my own. Though an humble authority, still I was speaking the language of the British Government, and that language was received by the American Government with acquiescence and satisfaction. My words were these:—
"The undersigned resigns all pretensions on the part of the British Government to visit and search American vessels in time of peace; nor is it as American vessels that such vessels are ever visited. But it has been the invariable practice of the British navy, and, the undersigned believes, of all navies in the world, to ascertain by visit the real nationality of merchant vessels met on the high seas, if there were good reason to apprehend their illegal character. In certain latitudes, and for particular objects, vessels are visited not as American, but either as British vessels engaged in an unlawful traffic and assuming the American flag for criminal purposes, or as belonging to States which have by treaty conceded to Great Britain the right of search, and which right it is attempted to defeat by fraudulently bearing the protective flag of the Union; or, finally, they are visited as piratical outlaws, having not the least title to any flag or any nationality whatever."
Under those three categories we have exercised the right to visit vessels so suspected. But, if our officers knew that an Americans vessel was full of slaves, they would have no right whatever to visit or arrest her, unless they had good ground to suspect that she was not an American vessel. No doubt the flag is primà facie evidence of nationality; but the flag alone is not sufficient evidence, and is not sufficient to outweigh information to the contrary received from any quarter, or any other grounds of reasonable suspicion. No doubt our cruisers may commit a mistake and overhaul an American vessel, believing her to be a Spaniard or a pirate. But it has been found over and over again that instant and ample reparation has been offered for such an involuntary error, and that is all that can be expected between two nations acting in good faith with each other.

2087
I saw, some time ago, an extract from a despatch of General Cass, which appeared to me to state the case with perfect fairness, and they are the very words which I used myself. As I have said already, I have written more upon this subject than I hope it will ever be necessary for the noble Earl to write, and the result of that writing has been perfect content and tranquillity for sixteen or eighteen years, until this year, when we hear for the first time of British outrages. I believe it has arisen from the zeal of our cruisers. The addition of a squadron on the coast of Cuba, instead of operations being confined to the coast of Africa, has led to a more frequent exercise of the right of visit, and I am afraid the zeal of our cruisers has converted into a rule that which was only intended to be an exception. Without any ground of suspicion, the American flag is sufficient evidence of nationality, and it is only when there are grounds of suspicion that the British cruiser is entitled to see whether the suspected vessel is American or not. That is all that ever was asserted by us; and when the American Minister declares Her Majesty's Government have given up, frankly and finally, the right of visit—a declaration which is received with great enthusiasm by his countrymen—I am at a loss to understand what is given up. Twenty years ago we repudiated the existence of such a right. We never made assertion of any such right, and therefore we cannot give it up. But the noble Earl the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs added, that it is important some mode should be taken to verify the nationality of any vessel on the ocean, without which we can have no security whatever. The instructions to which I have referred were framed in the most careful and cautious manner, and we had the advantage of the assistance of the noble Earl now at the head of the Government. If the noble Earl the Secretary of State can make any regulations, or issue any instructions, which shall be more effectually and more carefully guarded, I shall be very glad to see them; but, notwithstanding the desirableness of the object, I doubt whether he will find it practicable. I do not complain of the noble Earl, because the subject was probably new to him, but those who advised him ought to have recollected that this subject occupied, during many months, a great deal of care and attention. At the time to which I allude, the question was at its
2088
height. It excited much more interest than it does now, and it assumed a much more serious character. I will not follow this subject further, but I will read an extract from the last despatch I wrote on this matter:—
"I have no intention to renew the discussion, and it is the less necessary because my last note has remained for more than four years without an answer, and the Secretary of State has declared to the British Plenipotentiary at Washington, that the explanations given were entirely satisfactory. The President is assured and believes that Great Britain will always respect the just claims of the United States. We have no pretensions to interfere in any manner, either by detention, visitation, or search, with vessels of the United States, known or believed to be such. But we still maintain and will exercise the right and necessity of ascertaining the genuineness of any flag that suspected vessels may carry. If, in the exercise of this right, any involuntary error should be made; if, in spite of every precaution, any loss or injury should be sustained, prompt reparation will be afforded; but that we should abandon the right itself is quite impossible."
That is the footing of common sense and common justice on which the question stands at this moment, and I was much pleased to see from the despatch of General Cass that he adopted the same opinion, and that he made the same statement and used the words which I myself employed. The exercise of our right, if it be cautiously and prudently asserted, as it has been for the last sixteen or eighteen years, will not leave us in a very bad position if no change is made. If, however, the noble Earl can improve the system which has prevailed during that time I can have no objection,
EARL GRANVILLE: I never heard that the state of the law as laid down by my noble and learned Friend had been questioned, nor am I aware that any complaint was made against the late Government for the instructions issued by them. No alterations in these instructions was made by the late Government, and I wish to know whether it is the intention of the noble Earl to abide by the instructions which have heretofore been acted upon until the communications with the American Government on this subject have been concluded. The case to be provided for is that of a vessel belonging to a nation which has conceded the right of search to Great Britain by treaty assuming the American flag for fraudulent purposes; and I wish to know whether the Government intend to maintain the existing instructions.
THE EARL OF MALMESBURY: The noble Earl (the Earl of Aberdeen) omitted to mention one very important matter. No doubt the noble Earl and the ministry with which he was connected assumed that the law was such as it has been laid down by my noble and learned Friend; but he did not say that the American Government invariably went further, and asserted that they had a right to maintain their own police, and that whatever might be on board a vessel, if the American flag were flying, we had no right to visit it. They said that they constantly carried out a visitation by their own police, and that they would not be meddled with by any other country. Then came the question of discretion. I admit that lately—I know not by whose orders—there has appeared to be an increased activity exhibited by our cruisers in searching American vessels. There can be no doubt that the accounts given to the American Government have been immensely exaggerated, and I may state that after a careful examination I have not found any instance in which our cruisers have behaved even with incivility to the officers of any American vessel which they have boarded; but at the same time I must admit that in the exercise of that discretion which is given to them under the instructions of the noble Earl there has been a want of judgment in some cases, and that our officers have visited vessels which there was no fair reason to suppose were engaged in the slave trade. The noble Earl has asked me whether I have altered those instructions. I have not done so. They remain precisely as they were. But I do not think they are so safely worded as they might be, and I think they might be improved so as not to expose our officers to the risk of making mistakes which amount to an infraction of international law, and which place them in an unfair position such as no officers, and especially young officers, ought to occupy. Pending the arrangement which I have sketched out, that English cruisers should search suspected English vessels, that Americans should search suspected American vessels, and that French cruisers should search suspected French vessels, without actually altering the instructions heretofore acted upon, we have thought it right to suspend them until the negotiations have proceeded further. We have also ordered our cruisers on that coast to respect the American flag under any circumstances, The Ameri-
2090
cans, on their part have added a considerable number of cruisers on the coast, and have promised, during this period of inactivity on our part, which, I trust, may be but short, to use all the activity they can in order that the American flag, which I fear has been several times used by slavers, may not be prostituted to the purposes of the slave trade.

LAW OF COPYRIGHT.—PETITIONS.
LORD LYNDHURST: I beg now to call your Lordships' attention to a very different subject. I rise to present petitions from the Society of Arts, from the Royal Institute of British Architects, and from a great number of painters, sculptors, architects, engravers, photographers, publishers, and others interested in the production of works of Fine Art, signed, among others, by the President of the Royal Academy, the President of the Water Colour Society, and many members of the Royal Academy, praying for an amendment and extension of the law of copyright. For a long period of years the law has recognized the principle of granting protection to works of the mind when they assume a material and useful form. Ever since the time of Queen Anne copyright has been granted to authors for the protection of their works. If a painter, not being satisfied with the remuneration for his works, should determine to engrave them, that engraving would be protected by the law of copyright. The protection of a copyright was even extended to works of design applied to manufactures. But it is a strange circumstance that to painting, the most delightful of all the arts, no protection by copyright has ever been given: and yet, by the same principle, it is an invention of the mind assuming a useful and beneficial form. In practice the effect of the present state of the law is a very extensive circulation of spurious copies of good paintings which is most injurious to artists of reputation, and which operates injuriously in many ways. The artist has lost the copyright in his works, and has been injured in reputation in consequence of their being copied by inferior artists. The public has been injured by the frauds committed. The extent of those frauds is most surprising. I have had laid before me a mass of evidence which is most extraordinary, with which I need not detain your Lordships, but which may very properly be referred to a Select Committee.

2091
In making spurious copies, the greatest pains are taken to deceive and mislead the public. They are generally the same size as the original, are painted on similar canvass, and are subscribed with the name or peculiar mark of the artist to whom they are to be attributed. There are regular dealers in these spurious copies, who employ artists of an inferior character for the purpose of carrying on the fraud. The copies are disposed of sometimes at private sales, at others at public auctions in London, or, more generally, in large commercial cities, such as Liverpool, Manchester. &c. It is not easy for the artist to reserve the copyright, because pictures frequently change hands, and there are no means of preventing these spurious copies getting into circulation. Sometimes lawyers are consulted as to the means of remedying this state of things, and they speak with uncertainty about injunctions from Chancery and actions of law; but it is quite out of question to expect that an artist will leave his studio and involve himself in the meshes of the Court of Chancery. A lady of very large fortune, who is remarkable for the admirable manner in which she applies it, purchased a picture from an artist for £600, on the understanding that it should not be copied; and she was very much astonished on going to the Manchester Exhibition a few years afterwards to find there a painting which, with the exception of some of the subordinate details, was an exact copy of her own. One gentleman, with whom I have communicated upon the subject, says that he has known as many as seventeen copies made from one picture. A noble Marquess purchased from the Exhibition a picture of some merit, called "Second Class—The Departure," for which he paid a considerable sum. He was asked to allow it to be engraved, and with his usual kindness and fondness for the arts he consented. Some time afterwards he found that while it had been in the hands of the engraver it had been copied, and the copy sold as the original at a sale in London. At that sale it was described as a very popular work, and the evidence of its popularity was that it had actually been engraved. The painter, Morland, made a contract with a dealer to go to his shop every morning at a certain time, and work for a certain number of hours each day till he had completed two or three pictures. At the same time the dealer engaged two inferior artists, who, as soon as Morland left, assumed his place,
2092
and copied the work which had been done during the day; so that when the pictures were completed, instead of two or three, five or six came into circulation. Another story is of this description:—A naval officer, whose novels and writings of that sort are very popular, sent two pictures to be lined. They were detained a long time, and when he went to inquire after them, the man to whom he had entrusted them said that his workshop was not there—it was at a place some miles off. The officer went to this workshop, but he did not find his pictures. The servant there said that they were at another place a mile or two off; but, seeing a ladder slung under a trap-door, he ran up it, opened the door, and in the loft to which it gave access found his pictures, surrounded by copies, three or four of which were completed, and two or three more still in progress. I think I have now said enough to induce your Lordships to consent to the appointment of a Select Committee to consider this subject and to devise some means by which copyright may be extended to works of design generally, but particularly to pictures. I have mentioned engravers. I do not think that they are sufficiently protected. An engraver cannot by law copy an engraving, but he can copy the picture from which it was engraved or an exact copy of it. An eminent architect mentioned this case to me:—Eight or ten persons sent in designs competing for the construction of a certain very important work. None of them were employed to execute it; but when it was completed, it was found to be made up of parts taken from all these competing designs. In 1836, a Committee of the House of Commons investigated this subject, but owing to the close of the Session, it was obliged to make a hasty Report, recommending its reappointment in the following Session. That Committee never was reappointed, and I therefore propose that a Committee of your Lordships Shall be appointed to pursue the inquiry, and to report what remedy can be applied to the relief of these petitioners. I am quite aware that nothing can be done during the present Session, but I wish to have a vote for a Committee to appoint its members, in order that they may, during the recess. direct their attention to the subject, which is rather a complicated one, and may next Session come to their work fully informed upon it, and prepared speedily to apply a remedy to the grievances complained of. I therefore move that a Committee be ap-

2093
pointed, and that its members be now named.
Petition read, and ordered to lie on the table.
Then it was moved, That the said petitions be referred to a Select Committee to examine the statements contained therein; and to report thereon to the House.
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMOREwas fully sensible of the importance of this question, and should offer no opposition to the course which the noble and learned Lord proposed to pursue with regard to it.
Motion agreed to.
Committee named.

CHURCH OF ENGLAND SPECIAL SERVICES BILL.—QUESTION.
THE EARL OF WICKLOWsaid, that he had intended to ask the most rev. Prelate the Archbishop of Canterbury whether the Church of England Special Services Bill, which was introduced by him into that House, and passed on the 22nd of March, had been withdrawn from the House of Commons with his approbation, and whether such withdrawal was in consequence of his having found that the law was such as not to require the passing of this Bill. He had in writing informed the most rev. Prelate of his intention to put these questions to him, and had received an answer from his Grace, telling him that having left town it would be most inconvenient for him to return, but giving specific answers to his inquiries. His Grace informed him that it was with his concurrence that the Bill was withdrawn, and explaining that that course had been adopted because the hon. Member to whose care it was intrusted found upon inquiry that the House of Commons would not pass the Bill, because it gave to the Bishops a power which that House would never sanction. That power was a power to prevent vicars and rectors from interfering with special services introduced into their own parishes without their license. In the course of last year a committee of pious gentlemen, wishing to open religious services for the working classes in Exeter Hall, applied to the Rev. Mr. Edouart, the rector of the parish, for his permission. That rev. gentleman, apprehending that more evil than good might arise from such a system, expressed his doubts of the wisdom and propriety of the proceeding; and, after some time, conceiving big anticipations to have been unfortunately realized, he announced his determination to withdraw his sanction
2094
of these services in Exeter Hall. The committee who had originated the movement fully acquiesced in his right, and entirely admitted Mr. Edouart's power to take such a course. The consequence, however, was that the object of the parties in seeking to establish special services for the working classes was completely attained, because Westminster Abbey and other churches in that city were opened for that purpose, though Exeter Hall was closed. Early in the present Session a noble Earl who was at the head of the religious society in question (the Earl of Shaftesbury), brought in a Bill to deprive Mr. Edouart and other clergymen in the same position of the rights which the law gave them. The form of that Bill was objected to by members of the Episcopal Bench, and the most rev. Prelate introduced a modified measure on the same subject, which superseded the first, and having been ultimately agreed to by their Lordships, went down to the other House. In the other House, however, the Bill had since been withdrawn, and the committee of gentlemen to whom he had referred then determined, in spite of Mr. Edouart's remonstrance, and in violation of the existing law, to reopen Exeter Hall for religious services to be performed by clergymen of the Church of England, and which were announced to have received the sanction of the Bishop of the diocese. Mr. Edouart, thereupon, wrote to the Bishop, calling upon the right rev. Prelate to protect his rights and those of the Church from invasion. In his reply the Bishop declined in any way to interfere, but signified his intention to wait and see what legal decision was given in the case in the event of the question being tried in a court of law. Surely it was most unjust towards Mr. Edouart, whose rights were invaded, thus to refuse him any aid, and to stand idly by while the whole burden and brunt of a legal contest were cast upon him. True, this committee of gentlemen declared that they were acting under an Act of the 18 & 19 Vict., and it appeared that the right rev. Prelate had allowed himself to be persuaded that under the authority of this statute these services might be carried on. The Act of the 18 & 19 Vict., however, was merely an Act for the opening of conventicles, and was exclusively intended to authorize Roman Catholics, Jews, and other Dissenters to open places of worship, and had no reference to Church of England services. These gentlemen, therefore, stood

2095
in this position, that they were either acting as Dissenters or were violating the law. The right rev. Prelate, indeed, might say that he was no party to this proceeding; but there could be no doubt that nine-tenths of the persons who attended Exeter Hall supposed that the services there had his sanction as Bishop of the diocese. The closing of Exeter Hall last year was followed by the opening of Westminster Abbey, and it seemed that this year the opening of Exeter Hall would be followed by the closing of Westminster Abbey. He trusted the right rev. Prelate (the Bishop of London) would afford some explanation of his conduct, and state why he had not taken measures to disabuse the public of the impression that these services had been commenced under his sanction.
THE BISHOP OF LONDONsaid, he felt some difficulty in replying to the question of the noble Earl. He really did not feel himself capable of stating what took place in the other House of Parliament; he knew nothing about it except that a Bill, to which he, together with their Lordships, gave a most cordial assent, had disappeared from the House of Commons because it was believed that it would not receive the sanction of that House. Before the noble Earl applied the words "unjust and unfair" to the conduct of any Member of their Lordships' House, he ought to be extremely sure of the facts. He believed that the only fact that bore any very distinct reference to his conduct in this matter was the statement that these services were commenced with his sanction. Now, as he believed the noble Earl held in his hands the printed correspondence to which he referred, which was very short so far as he (the Bishop of London) was concerned, and which contained distinctly these words—"these services are not with my sanction"—it would have been as well if he had read that before he stated that they were with his sanction. It was the first time he had heard it stated anywhere that these services were with his sanction. He had in the most public manner stated that they had not his sanction. He understood that the Bill referred to was opposed in the other House and by many out of the House, on the ground that it was unnecessary, because it was already lawful to do that in another form which that Bill gave an opportunity of doing in the particular form in which it passed their Lordships' House. As soon as the services to which the noble Earl alluded were, he believed, intended to be reopened,
2096
he received an intimation from certain gentlemen that they had satisfied themselves that they had the law on their side, and were determined to open these services. His answer to those gentlemen was, that he would not pretend to pronounce an opinion on the question of law. He then received an intimation from some other gentlemen that they felt that the law was equally certain on the other side. He simply referred them to another tribunal. When there was a disputed point of law, a Bishop, he thought, ought not to use private influence to prevent it from being settled. If the law was as stated by the noble Earl, the question was capable of being settled in the Bishop's court. He was convinced that any private interference of his in this matter would have merely done harm. Any one who was acquainted with this diocese knew that there was great room for such services. Their Lordships had, by a considerable majority, affirmed that there was room for such services; and if it should turn out that they were lawful, he for one should not object.
VISCOUNT DUNGANNONthought the noble Earl was perfectly justified in advocating the cause of a greatly oppressed and persecuted clergyman, who lie believed had acted entirely within the law. It might be perfectly right in Dissenting ministers to perform these services in Exeter Hall, but he thought it highly irregular that clergymen of the Church of England should be brought, in defiance of the positive injunction of the incumbent, to perform these; and to perform them, moreover, in a wholly irregular manner, No use whatever was made of the Liturgy; there was extempore prayer, a hymn was sung, and then a discourse was delivered. Some of these clergymen, he believed, were incumbents in the diocese of the right rev. Prelate. He wished to know whether this was a regular mode of proceeding on the part of clergymen of the Established Church. Was it a regular course of proceeding for one clergyman to force his way into the parish of another against his positive injunction, to interfere with his spiritual influence over his flock, and to perform an irregular mode of service? [Cries of Order!] The noble Earl had put a question of very great importance, to which he thought a very unsatisfactory answer had been given, and he considered he had a right to offer some remarks upon the question, but if he were out of order, he would, of course, desist.
THE EARL OF WICKLOWsaid, he had asked a question to which he had not received an answer. He wished to know whether it was true that Westminster Abbey was about to be closed.
THE BISHOP OF LONDON:—Westminster Abbey is not within my jurisdiction, although locally situate in my diocese. The Dean and Chapter act entirely on their own responsibility. These services close about this time of the year, and will commence again, with my most hearty wishes for their success, when the season again arrives. There is no connection whatsoever between them and Exeter Hall.

GOVERNMENT OF NEW CALEDONIA BILL.—SECOND READING.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE EARL OF CARNARVON, in asking their Lordships to give a second reading to this Bill, said, that those who happened to be familiar with the very graphic accounts which had appeared in the newspapers with regard to the discovery of gold in the north-western part of British America, would feel, probably, that little justification was required for the introduction of the present measure. A complete revolution had recently taken place in that country, which was bounded on the west by the Pacific, on the east by the Rocky Mountains, on the south by the territory of the United States, and on the north by a chain of hills, lakes, and rivers, and which embraced an extent of about 400,000 square miles. That district, but a short time since tenanted only by wild beasts and still wilder savages, with here and there a hunter, had suddenly become the scene of gold discoveries, and was already the theatre of action, enterprise, and adventure. It was late in July, 1856, that information first reached this country of there being a suspicion of gold in those parts. At long intervals, and by occasional mails, some confirmation of that suspicion was brought from time to time; but it was not till March of this year that full and complete assurance was received. We then learned for the first time that emigrants were departing in crowds from the gold mines of San Francisco and were proceeding to this new El Dorado in the British territory. The account of that immigration was only to be compared to that which had taken place in former years to San Francisco itself. The hardy adventurers sailed up hundreds
2098
of miles by sea, they pierced the frontier, they found roads for themselves along the valleys, they launched their frail canoes upon the river, which was full of hidden rocks and not less dangerous eddies and currents; and though many lost their lives, were drowned in the river, or wandered from the road, or died from destitution, the great majority at length reached the scene of action—the haven of their ambition. It was to enable us to establish something like law and order, to frame something like a nucleus of civilization round which future laws and institutions might gather themselves, that be asked their Lordships to give this Bill a second reading. It might be perhaps argued that the Government had been rather precipitate in entering upon this step; but any one who was acquainted with the history of the gold colony of California must admit that in such a case it was far better to anticipate than to find ourselves in the rear. There were, moreover, certain circumstances which gave peculiar embarrassment and anxiety to this question, and which at the same time appeared to call for immediate action on the part of the Government. In the first place it must be borne in mind that the whole of this territory was at present in the main, though not actually, subject to an exclusive license to trade with the Indians which the Hudson's Bay Company had for many years enjoyed. It was true that that license expired next year; it was also true that the Government had no intention of renewing that license, and that it would, therefore, in point of law become entirely inoperative; yet the effects which it would leave behind it, and the influences which it had sown would exist, and might easily lead to complications and to serious embarrassments unless provision were at once made for some effectual machinery of government. It must also be borne in mind that we had not to deal with an exclusively white population. There was a population of native Indians there, considerably outnumbering the whites, and those savages naturally looked with distaste and aversion upon those who, as all experience taught them, must in the end deprive them of their inheritance. These were some of the elements of difficulty and danger which it was necessary to provide against, and the Bill which was introduced for that purpose was very simple. It first proposed to give power to the Crown to make laws and ordinances for the new colony. It then

2099
assigned a limit of four years' duration to the operation of the Bill itself. It then proposed to establish a Governor, who should hold the reins of office provisionally for that period; but who should be entrusted with very full and absolute powers. At the same time it provided that the Crown, whenever it saw fit, should establish a freer Government and a more liberal system of institutions. And, finally, power was given to the Crown at any time, upon the joint address of the two Houses of Assembly of Vancouver's Island to annex that island to the new colony. It had been objected to this Bill in some quarters that we were establishing a Governor with absolute and arbitrary power, that we were departing from the path of free institutions, and adopting a narrow and retrograde policy; and it had been argued that we ought either to give complete freedom and independence to the new colony, or to prescribe in the first instance the particular form of government which we wished to see established, and to appoint a provisional Governor, holding the reins of power simply until the new system could be introduced. The advantage of giving free institutions to our colonies was undeniable, but in this case there were at present no materials for carrying them into operation; and it must be borne in mind that the settlers who resorted to the colony were not likely at first to be permanent. At present, therefore, he thought that free institutions would be a useless gift; but he should be glad if, within four years, the Government of that day should be able to announce that the materials for a freer Government existed. Of course that matter would soon be settled, if the gold was found in sufficient quantity to attract to and retain people in the colony; but he must say that the amount of gold found was not sufficient to afford a very satisfactory criterion for the future. Objection had been made to the name of the new colony; but New Caledonia was the name found on the old maps, and by that name it was designated by the distinguished philosopher Humboldt. The objection, however, was not without foundation, for there was already the colony of Nova Scotia, which was pretty much the same as New Caledonia, and, moreover, there was a New Caledonia amongst the New Hebrides. Her Majesty had, therefore, been pleased to order that the name by which the new colony should be called in future should he British Columbia and not New Cale-
2100
donia. He hoped that this colony, though the newest, might prove to be one of the most loyal and devoted of those which paid allegiance to Her Most gracious Majesty.
Moved that the Bill be now read 2a.
THE DUKE OF NEWCASTLEsaid, that though no opposition had been offered to the principles of the Bill in the other House, considerable doubts were entertained out of doors, by persons well acquainted with colonial matters, as to the propriety of creating a Government for this territory at this particular time. It was thought that, considering that Vancouver's Island was about to lapse to the Crown next year, and that the license of the Hudson's Bay Company would also expire very soon, it would have been better to await the course of events. He did not share, however, in those doubts. The Government, he thought, had adopted the right course in endeavouring to establish a Government of some kind for this territory. No one had advocated responsible government for the Colonies more strenuously than he; but such governments were only applicable to colonists of the English race. In this colony there were but few English settlers, except here and there a trapper of the Hudson's Bay Company. The great want in such a society was a strong Executive, and that want would bo supplied by some such measure as that which their Lordships were then considering. He should, however, add that he had considerable doubt as to the expediency of their adopting the third clause of the Bill. That clause would give Her Majesty the power to grant free institutions to the colony by charter, if she should think fit. Now that was a right which Her Majesty would possess without such a provision, and he feared that, considering the Government provided by the Bill was to last only for four years, by its express insertion in an Act of Parliament unreasonable and dangerous expectations might be excited. The very unfortunate name of "New Caledonia," which had been given to the colony was, it appeared, to be altered. He was glad that such a change was to be made, although he certainly did not think that the new name of "British Columbia" was either very felicitous or very original. Very great difficulties, and dangers, and doubts were at issue in connection with the government they were about to form, arising from the peculiar circumstances of the country, and the extreme difficulty that there was in intro-

2101
ducing any form of settled government. But there were greater facilities for the furtherance of a good system of colonization and for future prosperity than the mere irruption of gangs of gold diggers. These could not be adopted too soon. Vancouver's Island was not like some of the other gold producing districts, of an inhospitable and rocky nature, but rather of an opposite character. He believed it to be a singularly fine country for all the purposes of colonization, quite apart from discoveries of gold, and nothing would have prevented its earlier colonization except the distance at which it was located. He understood that it had magnificent wood, and that some of the finest timber for ship building was to be found in the country; that its fisheries were exceedingly abundant; that it had excellent fuel and coal of a nature to generate steam most admirably; in short, all those conveniences and elements that were calculated to render a colony prosperous. Could not, therefore, some means be taken at once for a settlement of the colony, and to induce persons to go out, not merely for the purpose of searching for gold, but to avail themselves of the advantages of a permanent settlement? Steps should be taken to lay out a town, and to adapt the lands to agricultural pursuits, and prevent the colony from becoming the receptacle for ruffians; steps should be taken to introduce habits of decency and order, to establish a certain amount of force, such as would keep the inhabitants in decency and good order, and thereby obviate the difficulties that attached to the first days of a colony of this description. There was another point to which he wished to call the attention of Her Majesty's Government. There was about the spot where the gold was discovered, and where it probably extended, a considerable number of Indians of a warlike and somewhat savage nature; and it was an undoubted fact that, whether from their communications with the Hudson's Bay Company, or from other causes, they were by no means unfriendly to the English—though they had a great dread of the Americans, who would, no doubt, come over from California, and people a large portion of these lands; and it would be one of the first duties of the Government to intervene for the protection of these aborigines. He did not mean to sentimentalize on a matter of this kind. Wherever the white man and civilization extended the red man fled before them,
2102
and eventually perished from the face of the country. This appeared to be one of the laws of God which the efforts of civilization and humanity could not prevent; and it was one of the paramount duties of a good Government, in carrying out colonization, to interfere as far as possible to prevent those cruelties and horrors that had been perpetrated in the early days of our Colonies where there were a number of aborigines, and which, unfortunately, prevailed to a great extent in the western portions of the United States. The third point to which he thought the attention of the Government ought to be directed was with reference to the military force in that country. If they established a government for the purpose of maintaining law and order among the population, they must of course have a force of that nature. Now, this was a difficult question, and it would be the business of statesmen to look to the future, as well as to mitigate and to provide for present emergencies. Now, if they sent soldiers out, they must find accommodation for them there which did not at present exist—as well in winter, which he believed was not severe, as in summer, which was not unfriendly to the English constitution. Provisions would also have to be procured, and all provisions for maintaining the required force must be carried up the country and kept in constant supply. This, owing to the distance of the colony from England, would be a matter of considerable difficulty. Another question also presented itself, as to whether they were to send organized regiments or some other kind of force, bearing in mind that, apart from this, there was another question looming in the distance—that of provision to be taken in the Bill for the eventual addition of Vancouver's Island to this colony, if the Legislature of that island desired it. It had been stated by the noble Lord the Under Secretary for the Colonies that the new colony was not so far distant from the mother country as appeared upon the map, and that the Government had had overtures from Cunard to establish a line of steamers that would bring the colony within thirty-five days' sail of this country. He did not attach any value to such a speculation, for it could not be maintained unless it paid but whether it did or not, they must bear in mind that the communication could only exist in time and for the purposes of peace; he did not apprehend that they could transport soldiers or relieve garrisons with facility even

2103
in times of peace, but unquestionably not in times of war; so that, practically, as far as the advance of this colony was concerned in time of war, the Government could only reinforce and strengthen any garrison via Cape Horn. The question was one that ought to be well and carefully weighed; and he would exhort the Government, in any military arrangements they might make, to look to the future, and to bear in mind that any military force they would be placing in New Caledonia would be in a totally different position to that of any military force they had hitherto had in any of our Colonies. It would probably not be thought desirable to maintain so expensive an establishment as at Gibraltar, Malta, or Corfu; but it must be borne in mind that this colony was not like Australia or New Zealand, as remote from great Powers as from England—it was near to great Powers, but remote from us. In conclusion, the noble Duke referred to his efforts in the House of Commons to give Vancouver's Island a constitution, when it was proposed to hand it over to the Hudson's Bay Company, and expressed a hope that now, when that event was about to take place, the Government would, in all their arrangements, look upon it as certain that the people of Vancouver's Island would avail themselves of the provisions of this Bill, and at an early date declare in favour of a junction with the new colony.
LORD WODEHOUSEbelieved that Nature had given us one of the finest positions in the North Pacific, and it behoved the Government to consider seriously how to take advantage of it. They ought also to take into account the position of the Russians on the Amoor river, and of the Americans in California and Oregon, and the difficulty that might arise from those circumstances in the event of a war in those parts.
Motion agreed to.
Bill read 2a accordingly; and committed to a Committee of the whole House To-morrow.

WRECK OF THE CANDACE.—QUESTION.
LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY, in rising to put a question to the Vice President of the Board of Trade respecting the wreck of the Candace, African steam-packet, and to ask whether it is the intention of the Board of Trade to institute an inquiry, under the provisions of the 432nd section of the Merchant Shipping Act, into the circumstances attending the loss of
2104
that vessel, said the Candace at the time the accident happened was on her return voyage from the coast of Africa. In the middle of the night she came into collision with a Dutch ship, whereby the Candace was lost with the whole of her cargo. By this accident, moreover, seven lives were lost. A lieutenant of the Royal Navy and other persons competent to judge were on board, and they were of opinion that there had been great misconduct, or at least negligence, on the part either of the officers of the Candace or the company to which she belonged. It appeared that the vessel at the time of the accident was entrusted to the care of an officer who was not properly certificated; that the master and mate were below, and that the vessel was entrusted entirely to the boatswain. When a question was put in the other House to the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Board of Trade, he replied that legal proceedings would probably be instituted, which would ensure a better inquiry than could be obtained by means of the Board of Trade. It was desirable that an inquiry should be instituted into the loss of all passenger vessels, particularly where lives were sacrificed. Since the passing of the Act empowering these inquiries he did not know a single case in which, where lives had been lost, an inquiry had not been instituted. If ever such an inquiry ought to be prosecuted it was in a case like the present, and as he understood no criminal proceedings had been instituted, he trusted that the Government would yet direct an inquiry to be made into all the circumstances of the case.
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMOREsaid, from inquiry, it appeared that the Candace was on her usual voyage; that she had been inspected before starting, and that it had been reported to the Admiralty that in all respects the vessel was fit and the crew fit. All the requirements of the law had been complied with. On the return voyage, not as had been said, on a bright night, but on rather a dark night and with a heavy sea, the vessel came in collision with a Dutch collier. Both the captain and the first mate had certificates, and the second mate had held a position in the navy; the crew had been shipped at Liverpool, at the best shipping office in the United Kingdom. On the return voyage the second mate was ill and was not able to attend to the ship, and the ship was in charge of the boatswain, but he was a man who had been eighteen years at sea, and

2105
had been boatswain on board one of the Cunard steamers. The master was called up the moment the collision happened. The collision was with a Patch collier, and any one who knew anything of the sea knew the careless mode in which those vessels were navigated. He believed that the accident had been entirely caused by the carelessness of the crew of the collier. The Candace had all her lights properly placed. The captain of the Candace had been since drowned, and therefore, as far as he was concerned, an inquiry was useless. Then where were they to get further evidence? How could they get the evidence of the Dutch crew? The only person who had applied for an inquiry was a lieutenant in the navy, and who stated in his communication that it was his intention to take proceedings at law against the company. What was to be got by inquiry? They had satisfied themselves that the owners of the vessel had done everything necessary, and that the captain and the mate were proper persons. He might perhaps have fished out materials for an action against the company, but that was a position in which the Government should not stand.
LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYsaid, that if grounds such as those alleged by the noble Bari were to be sufficient to justify the Board of Trade in making no inquiry in a case in which a ship had been lost, no such inquiry would in future ever be held, and the valuable provisions of the Merchant Shipping Act would become a dead letter.
House adjourned at Nine o'clock, till To-morrow, half-past Ten o'clock.