Lords Sitting of 18 February 1862

UNITED STATES—IMPRISONMENT OF BRITISH SUBJECTS—CASE OF MR. SHAVER.
The Earl of CARNARVONsaid, he was sorry to renew a subject which he had twice brought under the notice of their Lordships. He hoped it would now be for the last time. He had on a preceding evening directed the attention of his noble Friend the Secretary for Foreign Affairs to the forcible detention of three British subjects at Fort Warren, in the United States of America; and as he did not wish to overstate the case in any way, he wished to take that opportunity of correcting, as far as he could, the information he had furnished upon that subject. He had since seen a person who professed to be a relative of one of those three persons, who had told him that that gentleman had
418
passed under some process of naturalization under the authority of the American Government; and that would of course disentitle him to the protection of the Government of this country. He accepted that statement for what it was worth, and he now mentioned it because he was extremely anxious that he should not he supposed to exaggerate. Having made that explanation, he (the Earl of Carnarvon) had to bring another case of a somewhat similar description under the notice of his noble Friend. The papers relating to the case, for which he had moved had been printed, and were now in their Lordships' hands. He would, not trouble them with details. It was sufficient to remind their Lordships that Mr. Shaver, a Canadian gentleman travelling in the States, was arrested and taken to prison. An oath of allegiance, which he construed into an oath of abjuration, was tendered, and refused. Communications passed between him and Lord Lyons, and there was a correspondence between Lord Lyons and Mr. Seward. In spite of remonstrances, Mr. Shaver was detained in prison. A second oath, nearly as objectionable as the first, was tendered, and declined, and ultimately upon the 6th of January, after he had been detained three months in prison without any charge having been made, Mr. Shaver was released, on his consenting to enter into a very extraordinary engagement—an engagement which no Government had a right to exact, and to which no British subject ought, perhaps, to have subscribed—an engagement to the effect that he would neither travel in the Southern States of America nor hold any communication with the people of those States without the consent of the American Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. He (the Earl of Carnarvon) did not mean to attach any blame to Mr. Shaver in that matter, because he was in a very difficult position; neither did he blame Lord Lyons, for he also was in a very difficult position, and, no doubt, gave the best advice in his power. But the question naturally arose, what claim Mr. Shaver might have for compensation after he had been imprisoned for three months to the injury of his health, to the great disadvantage of his private business, and even, it might be said, at the peril of his life. It seemed to him that that was clearly a case which called for compensation and an expression of regret on the part of a friendly Government; and he was anxious to know whether any

419
claim to that effect had been put forward by his noble Friend on behalf of Mr. Shaver, or whether he was prepared to make one. He should have thought that his noble Friend would have been one of the very first men to vindicate the rights of a British subject under such circumstances. But after having heard the statement made the other evening by his noble Friend, and after having looked through the correspondence which had been presented to the Members of the House that day, he could not help feeling some anxiety upon the subject. He found in that correspondence no demand for compensation made by his noble Friend; nay, more, he did not find that there was one single scrap of the pen on the part of his noble Friend in reference to that matter. It seemed to him that this was a question of sufficient importance to attract the notice of his noble Friend, and he felt some surprise that there was not the slightest intimation in these papers of his noble Friend's having pursued that course, or of his having even expressed any approval of the steps which had been taken by Lord Lyons. That was not the way Lord Malmesbury acted in the case of the Cagliari on behalf of the English engineers who had been detained in prison at Naples. Lord Malmesbury had in that case carefully inquired into the state of the prisoners, and had insisted on their being at once either liberated or brought to trial; and he finally obtained adequate compensation from the Neapolitan Government for the British subjects who had received ill-treatment at their hands; and the noble Earl's course was applauded even by the Members of the present Government who were then in Opposition. Again, that was not the course which was pursued by the present Government in the case of those British subjects who had been kept imprisoned, or who had been murdered during the late war in China. There they obtained compensation both for the survivors and for the relatives of those who had died. Neither was it the course adopted by the noble Yiscount the present First IiOrd of the Treasury in the case of Don Pacifico, who was not even a British subject, but who claimed the protection of the British Government. The noble Earl had said the other evening that the present case had changed its character since the suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act in the United States, and that if British subjects were treated in the same way as
420
American citizens they could not complain. But that was precisely the plea which was put forward by the Mexican Government when they were asked to offer reparation for the injustice which had been done to a number of British subjects. They said their country was in so disturbed a state that the ordinary laws had been suspended, and they declined to afford to foreigners compensation for the injuries they had sustained under such circumstances. But the Governments of England, of France, and of Spain, would not allow the force of the plea in answer to their demands, and combined for the purpose of obtaining from Mexico the required reparation. Such an argument would be scouted at once if it were used by a European Government, and he saw no reason why any distinction should be drawn between the United States and European Governments. He (the Earl of Carnarvon) should further observe that he believed there never had been any suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act in the United States. The Act had not been suspended; but the writs issued for the purpose of enforcing it had been disregarded by the simple fiat of the American President. Under those circumstances he would ask his noble Friend whether any correspondence had passed between Her Majesty's Government and the Government of the United States, with a view to obtain compensation for Mr. Shaver for the imprisonment to which he had been subjected; and, if so, whether his noble Friend would lay that correspondence before the House; while if there had been no correspondence upon that subject, he hoped his noble Friend would inform them whether he meant to ask for such compensation?
EARL RUSSELL: I will first reply to the question of the noble Earl with regard to the claim for compensation. Mr. Shaver has not made any claim for compensation for the imprisonment he has suffered; consequently, not having received any claim from him, I have not forwarded any to the United. States Government. But the noble Earl so proceeded to argue this question, that it is necessary that I should give some explanation as to this and other cases. The noble Earl seems to have forgotten that which appears to me to be the gist of the case, which is this—whether, the writ of Habeas Corpus being suspended in the United States, and suspended by an authority which the United States them-

421
selves think sufficient, there was any sufficient ground for the arrest and detention of Mr. Shaver? In a letter of the 13th of December it is stated that Mr. Shaver made himself, or suffered himself to be made, a medium of communication between the Confederates in arms against the United States Government in the South and their agents in Canada and Europe. That letter also states that Mr. Shaver convoyed arms (revolvers) into the so-called Confederate States.
The Earl of CARNARVON: There is no admission of the sort on Mr. Shaver's part. It rests simply on Mr. Seward's assertion, without a tittle of evidence.
Earl RUSSELL:—If the noble Earl would allow me to go on, I was about to say this was the assertion of the United States Government. In a letter of the 17th of December Mr. Shaver declares that all these charges are unfounded; but there has been no investigation either on one side or the other. I think that before I ask for compensation for Mr. Shaver I ought to have satisfactory evidence from him that these charges are unfounded, because if it were true that Mr. Shaver had made himself an organ of communication, had given encouragement to the Conlederates in arms—if he had conveyed arms to them—he would then have acted in direct contradiction to Her Majesty's Proclamation, which proclaimed a strict neutrality between the United States and the so-called Confederate States; and the British Government would have no right to ask for compensation. Mr. Shaver has not made any statement of that kind, he has never shown that he was not so engaged, and the case remains on the assertion of the American Government. On a former occasion I referred to what I wish my noble Friend had referred to—the letter of Lord Palmerston in 1848 or 1849 with respect to the suspension of the Habeas Corpus Act in Ireland. Two American citizens were at that time arrested in Ire land, and when the American Minister asked for the reasons of that arrest Lord Palmerston, then Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, replied that they were engaged in secret societies in America whieh were intended to foment and encourage revolt and disturbance in Ireland. My noble Friend did not give any positive proof of that assertion, but he simply made the statement, on the part of the Govern ment of Great Britain. I do not remem ber that any compensation was asked for
422
on that occasion, and I am inclined to believe that the statement made by Lord Palmerston, on the authority of the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland, was perfectly correct, and that there were grounds for the detention of those two American citizens. My noble Friend says that there has been no regular suspension of the Act of Habeas Corpus in the United States. In that respect, again, there is a misapprehension, which is natural enough in this country, and which arises from ignorance of the institutions of the United States. The writ of Habeas Corpus in this country depends upon an Act of Parliament, and therefore, whenever you require to suspend it, it is necessary to bring in an Act of Parliament for the purpose. But the Habeas Corpus in America is not a special Act, and therefore it does not require an Act of Congress to suspend it in case of insurrection. The question is, by what authority the writ of Habeas Corpus can be legally suspended in case of an insurrection? Now, the only point the American Constitution has left vague and unsettled is the authority by which it may be suspended. But it has been assumed, and all parties in America appear to have consented to the assumption, that this authority should reside in the President and the Secretary of State acting under his orders. I do not see that we can contend that this is not a lawful authority, or that being so it is not to be acted on, though it may have been acted on to the injury of British subjects as well as of American citizens. The noble Earl speaks of compensation in these cases of imprisonment, and thinks that such arrests should not be allowed to pass without strong remonstrances on the part of Her Majesty's Government. It appears to me that one must be ignorant of the state of affairs in America to resort to this argument. The United States Government have not merely to deal with a groat revolt, but there exists in that country a great civil war; and there are many persons in the Northern States who sympathize with the South, as there may be persons in the Southern States who sympathize with the North. Both to the Government of the United States and that of the Confederate States there is that condition of danger in which they may have recourse to extraordinary measures. If the noble Earl will refer to the history of this country during the Revolutionary War, he will find that the writ of Habeas Corpus was frequently

423
suspended. In Ireland there have been periods when it was suspended almost year after year. Now, can we say that in every one of the cases in which persons were then taken up on suspicion there existed that legal proof on which they could have been convicted? "We can say no such thing. If it was necessary to suspend the writ of Habeas Corpus in this country, in the circumstances of the French War, I certainly do not wonder that in the present stale of things in America the Government should resort to extraordinary measures, though may sometimes work injustice. I confess I think it a lamentable situation for that, country, both for the Government of the Northern States, and for those who are in arms against it. It is a great calamity for that country that such a civil war should have taken place. I am therefore disposed to view with some forbearance acts which in other Governments and under other circumstances would call for remonstrance. The noble Earl asks whether I have written to Lord Lyons any other despatch than that laid on the table. I have not written to Lord Lyons in reference to the case of Mr. Shaver, as I believe that our Minister is taking all the steps in the matter that are consistent with his duty. It may be that Mr. Shaver is entirely innocent of the charges brought against him, or it may be proved that he was taken when acting against the Government. In the former case he may demand compensation, and I should instruct Lord Lyons to ask for his release. But as the case at present stands I certainly cannot give any instructions to such effect. I cannot tell whether he was or was not the medium of communication between persons in the North and others in arms for the Confederate States, and till I have some proof on that subject I cannot interfere.

COURT OF CHANCERY (IRELAND)— APPOINTMENT OF A THIRD TAXING MASTER.—QUESTION.
THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDEasked, "Whether it is intended to fill up the Office, now vacant, of a Third Taxing Master in the Court of Chancery in Dublin; also, What progress has been made in collecting Judicial Statistics in Ireland, and how soon the Return for the past Year may be expected to be presented to the House?
EARL GEANVILLEsaid, the Treasury had entered into some communications with respect to the appointment of a taxing master. Those communications had not yet closed, and therefore he could give no definite answer on this subject. As to the judicial statistics, it was thought that further improvements might be introduced into the system adopted, and some delay might therefore occur before they were presented.

THE LATE INSOLVENT DEBTORS COURT —SALARIES OF THE OFFICERS.

  QUESTION.
  LORDS CHELMSFOEDsaid, he had put upon the paper a notice of his intention to ask his noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor a question with reference to the non-payment of the salaries, &c, of the Officers of the late Insolvent Debtors Court who have been transferred to the London Court of Bankruptcy under the Bankruptcy Act of last Session; and had done so in order to call the attention of his noble and learned Friend to the subject, and that he might give such an explanation as the case deserved, it being one of very great hardship and injustice to the officers referred to. By the Act of last Session the distinction between bankruptcy and insolvency was abolished, and consequently the Insolvent Debtors Court was also abolished. By one clause in that Act—namely, the 22nd—the chief clerk, clerks, and taxing officer of the Insolvent Court were transferred to the Court of Bankruptcy; and by another clause, the 26th, all monies, Government securities, and funds belonging to the Insolvent Court, were to be transferred to the Court of Bankruptcy; and it was provided that those funds were to be applicable "in like manner as at present," among other things towards the defraying of the salaries of the clerks and other officers of the Insolvent Debtors Court. The 30th Section also provided that the full amount of their salaries, remuneration, allowances, and compensation should be paid to the officers so transferred. No one could doubt that it was the intention of the Legislature to secure to those transferred officers the amount of salaries, allowances, remuneration, and compensation which they had previously been receiving. But he learnt with surprise, that although several weeks—he had almost said months;—had elapsed since the

  425
  first quarterly payment became due, they yet remained unpaid. This must manifestly cause much inconvenience, not to say suffering, to the parties and their families, especially to those officers who received very small salaries, which formed their sole means of support. Two instances had been brought under his notice. In one case an officer of the Insolvent Court had undertaken to discharge a debt by instalments, the means of doing so being by the receipt of his salary; but, not receiving it, he had been unable to meet the last instalment. The creditor could not believe that the official salary had not been paid, and thought the excuse was a dishonest means of evading the liability. He therefore put the law in force, and had levied an execution upon his debtor's goods. In the other case, one of the officers had insured his life for the benefit of his family to a small amount, but one of importance to per sons in his station; and not being able to pay the last premium, in consequence of his salary being unpaid, the policy had lapsed. These facts evidenced a most extraordinary state of things, and therefore he could not help calling upon his noble and learned Friend to give some explanation. It was clear that these persons were entitled to be paid for their services. There were certain funds applicable for the payment of their salaries; but the salaries were absolutely to be paid, and he did not expect that his noble and learned Friend would reply that, if from any circumstance the particular fund had run dry, therefore these officers were to be deprived of their salaries. He was satisfied that their Lordships would feel that the case of these persons was entitled to consideration.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, he was obliged to the noble and learned Lord for affording him an opportunity of making a statement upon this subject. He could say with sincerity that nothing had occurred since the passing of that Act of Parliament which had caused him so much vexation and given him so much pain as to find the unfortunate position in which the officers of the Insolvent Debtors Court had been placed. That position had arisen from the circumstance that words had been used in the Bankruptcy Act to express one particular result, which had been taken, and not unnaturally taken, by the clerks in the Insolvent Debtors Court as expressing another view, and having a different construction; and consequently
  426
  the interpretation which they had placed upon these words had given rise to expectations which, unfortunately, he had; no means of satisfying. The difficulty arose in this way. The officers of the Insolvent Debtors Court were paid partly by salaries, and partly by fees. The salaries were paid from an annual grant voted by Parliament; but the amount of the salaries was very inconsiderable as compared with the emoluments which the clerks represented that they had received from fees. The money voted by Parliament was a vote expressed to be for the purpose of discharging "salaries, certain allowances, and certain compensations," and the 30th section the Act provided that the Court of Bankruptcy should have the benefit of that vote upon the officers of the Insolvent Court being transferred to it. The language of the 30th section was very extensive at the commencement. It gave to the clerks of the Insolvent Court the full amount of the salaries, remuneration, compensations, and allowances which they had been receiving; but, unfortunately, those words were limited in a manner inconsistent with their ordinary meaning by other words, which provided that they were to be paid "as nearly as may be, out of the same funds and payable in the same manner in all respects as if the Bankruptcy Act had not been passed; and for such purpose the annual sums now payable out of the monies voted by Parliament for the use and purposes of the; Court for the Relief of Insolvent Debtors and the officers thereof, shall be paid in future to the credit of the Chief Registrar's account in Bankruptcy." The unfortunate effect, therefore, was that those salaries, allowances, and remunerations were to be paid out of a particular fund; which was itself limited to salaries properly so called, and to allowances and compensations. Now, the difference between the; amount of the salaries and remuneration asked for and the amount of the funds out of which they were to be paid was very great, the sum annually voted by Parliament being about£6,000, while the amount now claimed by the officers of the Insolvent Debtors Court was nearly £20,000 a I year. It was a painful thing if those gentlemen had relied upon the clause he had referred to as giving them a perpetual annuity to the full amount of the salaries and fees they were at that time respectively in receipt of; but it was impossible that such could have been intended, be-

  427
  cause it was quite at variance with all previous legislation to continue to the officers of abolished courts the amount of their fees in the shape of perpetual annuities. If that had been intended, an average of the amount of emoluments would have been ascertained, and compensation thereupon would have been allowed. These officers, however, claimed to receive amounts equal to their salaries and fees which they were receiving at the time of the passing of the Bankruptcy Act. That would give them a very extraordinary amount of salary, and one which varied considerably from a return that had been previously made. All that he could do was to apply the monies voted by Parliament and to make them applicable to the salaries of the clerks. He regretted exceedingly that he had no other power, because he admitted, that if the operation of the clause he had referred to had been such as was represented, the officers of the Insolvent Debtors Court might, while the Bill was before Parliament, have made some claim for compensation; and if he had understood, what he did not at the time know, that those officers were paid by fees, and not wholly by salaries, he should undoubtedly have thought it right to provide some means of compensation. With the imperfect understanding of the facts the clause had been passed, and the result was, that although there were sufficient funds to pay the salaries, properly so called, they were not sufficient to provide for salaries at all equal to those which from these various sources they were in receipt of when the Act came into operation. There was another clause concerning which he ought to give some explanation. The 26th clause provided that certain funds in the possession of the Insolvent. Debtors Court should be transferred to the Court of Bankruptcy, and the Lord Chancellor was empowered to apply those funds to three several purposes, one of which was to defraying the salaries of the clerks and other persons transferred. The monies thus transferred had accumulated from unclaimed dividends. They represented sums which might be claimed at any time, but the interest of which monies until claimed had always been treated by Parliament as applicable in part-payment of salaries; and accordingly, although £6,176 only was voted last year for the purposes of the Insolvent Debtors Court, it was reduced to that amount from the larger sum that would have been
  428
  required by deducting the probable amount of interest upon Exchequer Bills that had been purchased with monies arising from unclaimed dividends. The annual Vote had always been worded in this way—
  "£6,176 is voted for payment of salaries, and for payment of certain allowances and certain compensations; but it is reduced to that sum by deducting from a larger sum that would be the amount of the salaries, the probable amount of the interest on Exchequer Bills, purchased with unclaimed monies, and applicable under a particular statute in part-payment of salaries."
  What was intended to be done by the 26th section was this:—It was necessary to transfer the funds to the Court of Bankruptcy, because the creditors whose dividends had remained unclaimed would, after the abolition of the Insolvent Debtors Court, necessarily have to apply to the Bankruptcy Court for them. Then power was given to apply to these purposes the dividends, the amount of which had previously been deducted from the sum voted by Parliament for the payment of these salaries. Now these gentlemen had appealed to him—and he did not at all wonder at their appeal—to pay them out of the principal fund that amount of £14,000 a year which the annual Parliamentary vote would be insufficient to meet. It was, however, impossible that he could do anything of that kind; because the principal fund was the property of creditors who might claim it any day, and the utmost he could do would be to apply, in eking out the sum annually granted by Parliament, a proportionate amount of the dividend. The matter had occasioned him the greatest anxiety, and he had directed the opinion of the law officers to be taken, in the hope of discovering some means of affording these persons redress. But the law officers thought it utterly impossible to hold, from any part of the statute, that these clerks were entitled to receive out of the funds in bankruptcy such annual sums of money as were equal to the aggregate of the fees and salaries receivable by them at the time of the Bankruptcy Act coming into operation. They added, however—and it was a feeling in which he entirely sympathized—that the case was such that these gentlemen possessed a strong moral claim upon the consideration of Parliament. He had done the utmost in his power towards relieving some portion of their distress when he offered them salaries very considerably exceeding those which they had been in

  429
  the habit of enjoying, but not equal to the total amount of their salaries and the fees which they represented themselves to have been receiving—for he had no means whatever of making up the deficiency of £14,000. He therefore saw but two alternatives open to them under the circumstances—namely, these gentlemen should either accept that offer, or else a further appeal might be made to the House of Commons for that compensation which they would probably have obtained if their ease had been rightly understood, or if they had put forward their claim, which they did not do, depending, perhaps, on a construction of the 30th section which now turned out to have been erroneous.
  LORD CRANWORTHsaid, he had heard the result of his noble and learned Friend's speech with the deepest regret; but, after the statement just made, they must all admit that it was impossible for his noble and learned Friend to have done more. The opinion of the law officers of the Crown had been taken, and it appeared, from the mode in which the Act had been framed, that the noble and learned Lord had no power to give these gentlemen that to which they had not only a moral right, but that which it would be a disgrace to Parliament if they did not fully receive. This very question was mooted in the Select Committee on the Bankruptcy Bill, and the noble and learned Lord then on the Woolsack told them it was perfectly clear that these officers were provided for by the measure. It did not occur to any of the Members of the Committee then to look very minutely into the clause. The Act provided that the officers of the Insolvent Court should be transferred bodily to the new Court, that they should hold their offices during good behaviour, and that they should continue to receive the full amount of the salaries, remuneration, allowances, and compensation which they had previously received. It was true it was declared that these should be paid as nearly as might be, out of the same funds as those from which they were formerly derived; but no doubt had been entertained that they would actually be paid them. Certainly, as one Member of the Select Committee, he should feel it a sort of humiliation upon them if the result should be that a numerous body of persons, some of them in a humble position of life, and dependent for the support of themselves and their families upon their salaries, should now be deprived of that to
  430
  which they were justly entitled, although it had been stated at the time, by the highest legal authority, that they had been amply and securely provided for.
  THE EARL OF DERBYsaid, that having been a Member of the Select Committee, he could bear his testimony to the accuracy of what had been stated by the noble and learned Lord who had last spoken. He perfectly recollected its having been pointed out in the Committee that these officers received a very small and insignificant part of their remuneration in the shape of salary, and that the greater portion of their emoluments arose from fees paid in the Insolvent Court; that, as that Court was to be done away with, the source from which they derived their emoluments would be done away with at the same time, and that consequently they might be placed in very great difficulty. Thereupon the noble and learned Lord who then sat upon the Woolsack (Lord Campbell) said that ample words had been inserted in the Bill to meet the case, and that he thought them quite sufficient for their purpose.
  LORD CHELMSFORDsaid, that this was not the case of officers who, on their places being abolished, had a claim to compensation. These gentlemen were active and efficient officers who had been transferred from the Insolvent Court to the Court of Bankruptcy, and were entitled to the remuneration contemplated by the Act. The 30th section said that the chief clerks and other persons employed in the Insolvent Debtors Court, upon being in the manner therein provided transferred to the Court of Bankruptcy, should "severally continue to receive the full amount of the salary, remuneration, allowances, and compensations which they now respectively receive." Could there be a doubt that it was the intention of the Legislature by these words to place them in the Bankruptcy Court in precisely the same position they had occupied as officers of the Insolvent Court? The language of the clause went on to say-that they should receive these emoluments, "as nearly as may be, out of the same funds, and payable in the same manner in all respects, as if this Act had not been passed." He could confirm what his noble and learned Friend (Lord Cranworth) and his noble Friend near him had said as to what passed in the Select Committee relative to these last words. It was suggested that, as the Insolvent Debtors Court was to be abolished, and the fees payable in it would be abolished with it,

  431
  there might be no funds out of which to defray these salaries and the amount of these fees. The noble and learned Lord then on the Woolsack said it was impossible to put that construction upon the Act, and the objection was withdrawn, it being then little thought that these words would be urged against the claims of these persons by a future Lord Chancellor.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORdenied having urged these words against them.
  LORD CHELMSFORD: The Legislature clearly intended that these officers should receive their full salaries and emoluments, and it would be most unjust to deprive them of them. The right construction of the Act, he submitted, was that they were to receive their full salaries and emoluments at all events, although, for the sake of convenience, it was provided that they should be paid, as nearly as might be, from the same funds and in the same manner as if the Act had not been passed. If, however, the interpretation of the law officers of the Crown was the true one, no time ought to be lost in introducing a Bill in the other House of Parliament to remedy this grievance.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, that he had never intended to do anything of the kind which had been suggested in reference to these unfortunate men; and, in fact, he had simply stated the grounds upon which the law officers of the Crown had come to their conclusion. So far as argument was concerned, he should have been exceedingly happy if the construction put upon the Act by the noble and learned Lord who had just sat down were the true legal construction. He disclaimed any intention to press the language of the Act against these gentlemen, and, indeed, he thought that the language used quite evidenced an intention to give them the fullest possible remuneration, the only difficulty being that the words were used without an adequate understanding of the case. Upon the other subject which had been mentioned he might say that he had never from the commencement had any doubt about the propriety of giving these gentlemen full remuneration; but he had no means of doing so. This matter had been discussed again and again, and he thought that these gentlemen must undoubtedly be left to the proper mode of seeking for redress. He hoped that their Lordships would agree that with his limited power he could not have made a more liberal offer than that of giving them
  432
  the appointments in the Bankruptcy Court at increased salaries. All payments in the Bankruptcy Court, however, must be made by salaries, and not by fees; there had been misapprehension upon that matter, but that ought not to operate unjustly, and he should be exceedingly happy if the House of Commons should adopt the same view; and, as far as he was concerned, he should be glad to promote any measure which would give these gentlemen the redress to Which they were entitled.
  LORD CHELMSFORDexplained, that what he had meant to say was that his noble and learned Friend had urged the words in the statute as the ground of his inability to give these officers the remuneration to which they were entitled.

RIGHT OF SEARCH.—PETITION.
THE EARL OF DERBY presented a Petition from certain inhabitants of Manchester praying for inquiry into the Law respecting the Right of Search. The petition was signed by the Chairman and Secretary of the Foreign Affairs Committee at Manchester, and they expressed their opinion that the seizure of the Southern Commissioners on board the Trent was justified by the law of nations, and that our remonstrance involved an abandonment by us of the right of search; and they further thought that there was no validity at all in the engagements entered into by the Earl of Clarendon in 1856; and they prayed that their Lordships would appoint a Committee to inquire into the whole state of international law in reference to belligerent rights. He had informed these gentlemen that he thought that their arguments were founded in error; but as they nevertheless wished him to present their petition, he of course did so. He had also to present, another petition of a like kind from a similar body at Leeds.
Petition to lie on the table.
House adjourned at half-past Six o'clock, to Thursday next, half-past Ten o'clock.