Lords Sitting of 1 July 1867

MINUTES.
SELECT COMMITTEE—On Construction of the House nominated.
PUBLIC BILLS — First Reading — Adjutants of Volunteers* (192); Trusts (Scotland)* (195).
Second Reading—Salmon Fishery (Ireland) Act Amendment (168); Land Tax Commissioners' Names* (175); Railway Companies (Scotland)* (179), and referred to the Select Committee on "Railway Companies Bill."
Committee—County Treasurers (Ireland)* (149); Consecration and Ordination Fees* (193); Court of Chancery (Officers) (194); Court of Chancery (Ireland)* (172).
Report — County Treasurers (Ireland)* (149); Court of Chancery (Ireland)* (172).
Third Reading—Recovery of Certain Debts (Scotland)* (66); Drainage and Improvement of Lands (Ireland) Supplemental* (165); Lunacy (Scotland)* (163).

ASSESSMENT OF CHARITIES.

  QUESTION.
  VISCOUNT SYDNEYsaid, that a large deputation waited upon the First Minister of the Crown about three weeks ago to invite the Government to take some action upon this subject, and he now wished to ask the Lord Privy Seal, Whether the Government were prepared to bring in any Bill to alter the law affecting the Assessment of Charities?
  THE EARL OF MALMESBURYsaid, that the subject was one of the very
  746
  highest importance, and at this moment was attracting a great deal of public attention; but the pressure of public business this Session was so great, and the House of Commons was just now so overwhelmed, that it would be impossible to promise that any action would be taken on this subject during the present Session. The subject was one which required careful handling, because, however hard the case made out on behalf of some of these charities, there were other cases—for example, cases in which the locality derived no advantage from the charity—in which exemption of charities from payment of rates would put the locality to a great disadvantage. There were many other points which he would not mention now because that was not the proper time to discuss them; he wished merely to say that there was great difficulty in dealing with the subject, and that he could not undertake that any Bill should be brought forward this year.

MOLDAVIA—PERSECUTION OF JEWS.

  MOTION FOR AN ADDRESS.
  VISCOUNT STRATFORD DE REDCLIFFErose to move that an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, for Copies of any Correspondence which may have taken place between Her Majesty's Government and the Ottoman Porte, or the Hospodar of the Danubian Principalities, respecting Measures adopted by the Government of the latter for depriving the Jewish Residents in Moldavia of their Farms, and expelling many of them from the Country. It would be in their Lordships' recollection that the country which was the scene of the occurrences alluded to in the Motion of which he had given notice had been made an object of special care and benevolence by Her Majesty's Government and other Powers in alliance with Her Majesty. It appeared from information he had obtained that, in the Principality of Moldavia, a considerable proportion of the population had been from early times of the Jewish persuasion, and generally, with some occasional exceptions common to all parts of Europe, they had enjoyed tranquillity, and had been enabled to pursue their industrial avocations without annoyance. But a few weeks ago a sudden attack was made upon them, not only in consequence of religious prejudices on the part of the people, but also by a positive ordinance from the Home Department of

  747
  the local Government. Many of the Jews had been considerable sufferers; they had made contracts, partly with the Government and partly with private persons, for the purpose of occupying farina, inns, and places of public reception, and they were in a condition to acquire property in various parts of the country. It would seem that this circumstance annoyed some classes of the population who had previously enjoyed a sort of monopoly in the management particularly of inns, and the Minister of the Home Department (M. Bratiano) issued an ordinance by which the Jews were dispossessed of their property and expelled from their holdings without any reason being given; and, at the same time, under the pretext that they were vagabonds, numbers of them were seized, put in fetters, and forcibly conveyed away by soldiers to be embarked on the Danube for transportation to some unknown land. Representations on behalf of the sufferers were made to the Emperor of the French, and that illustrious Sovereign expressed his sympathy with them, and engaged to send orders to his agent in Moldavia to make representations to the local Government, and to obtain all the redress he could. At the same time, representations were made to the English Government; and Lord Stanley, with his usual promptitude in attending to the public interests, wrote to the British Consul in Moldavia instructing them to apply to the local authorities for the purpose of obtaining relief for the unfortunate sufferers. In order to give their Lordships a more complete idea of the manner in which the Jews had been treated, he would read the translation he had made of a few sentences from a paper published in the Moldavian language in France, under the title of Les Archives Israelites. On the 22nd of May last that journal said—
  "Bratiano, Minister of the Home Department, ordains that all persons of our religion should be immediately expelled from their farms, inns, and ale-houses in the country, annulling by a stroke of his pen the contracts which the Israelite farmers have concluded either with the Government or with private persons. The same Minister has signalized his recent arrival at Jassy by a decree still more barbarous, ordering the police to rush in upon the Jews as so many vagabonds; and the police, acting under the Minister's own eyes, collect in the streets from day to day numerous masses of Jews, without any judicial control, without distinction of rank or age, and, brutally loading them with irons, cause them to be transported beyond the Danube."
  Again, on the 25th of May the same journal said—
  748
  "The state of things has grown worse. Nothing is heard in the streets but cries of distress from the wives and children of the poor transported victims. They continue to hunt us down. They fetter even the old and infirm, and without pity drag them towards some unknown place of banishment. It is in vain that we appeal to the authorities. We are outlawed, and the populace is excited for our extermination."
  It was only natural that there should be some curiosity as to what had resulted from the intervention of France and of this country. All he could learn on the subject was that the public execution of the decree had not been persevered in, and although overt acts of oppression had—he would not say ceased—but had been suspended, secret persecution continued, and no redress appeared to have been given to those unhappy men who had been violently seized, chained, and transported. He presumed that the Jew was as much alive to the injuries of persecution as the very best Christian of us all, nor was difference of religion a circumstance calculated to make any change in the degree of sympathy which every one pretending to a grain of humanity ought to entertain for sufferers of this kind. On the contrary, he would say that in proportion as these people had been isolated and held up to reproach, and in proportion as persecution had been directed against them, they were entitled to our compassion and assistance. When a country had undertaken, as this had done, to procure for the people of another country institutions of a free and liberal character — when England had interfered to secure the Danubian Principalities from what was considered oppression at the hands of the Turkish authorities, it was highly irritating to see the Government of those Principalities—placed, as they were, under the protection of European benevolence—turning round upon a portion of its own subjects, whose only crime was difference of religion, and submitting them to the cruel treatment described in what he had read. Such a perversion of justice and duty must excite strong feelings of commiseration in favour of the Jews, strong feelings of indignation against the Government that could act in such a manner, and still stronger feelings of indignation against the Minister who could make himself the instrument of such persecution. He understood that M. Bratiano, the head of the Home Department in Moldavia, was a gentleman of extreme principles, verging on democracy—one who had not left himself without a witness in that respect; how

  749
  then did it happen, being placed in a position of trust, he should act in a manner so wholly at variance with the principles he had professed? Such inconsistency could only be explained by a spirit of subserviency to popular prejudice and to the interests of a class. One would have thought that representations made by Powers such as France and England would have had some immediate effect; but he understood that M. Bratiano was still in office, and that the redress afforded to the sufferers, if any, had been very imperfect. It was therefore the more important for the country to know what was really taking place and to see the Correspondence, if any had passed, between Her Majesty's Government and that of the Principalities. It was surely a matter in respect of which their Lordships could not but feel a lively interest; and it was also a case upon which the other House of Parliament would naturally desire to express its opinion. He had no doubt that Her Majesty's Government had taken such steps as the circumstances required; but still it was desirable that Parliament should be made acquainted with the nature of those steps, and also with the footing on which they had left us, towards the Danubian and Turkish Governments. He wished to show by a quotation from the Treaty of 1858 in what position the Jews in the Principalities had been placed in virtue of that agreement. The words of the 45th Article of the Treaty were—
  "Les Moldaves et les Valaques seront tous égaux devant la loi, devant l'impôt, et également admissibles aux emplois publics dana l'une et dans l'autre Principauté. Leur liberté individuelle sera garantie. Personne ne pourra être exproprié que légalement, pour cause d'intérêt public, et moyennant indemnité."
  Now the Jews were natives of the country, and, therefore, coming under the general denomination of Moldavians and Wallachians; they were entitled to the same rights in every respect as their Christian fellow-subjects. But a course the very reverse of that so justly marked out by the treaty had been adopted towards them. They had been deprived of their legal employments and driven from their farms for no reason but the jealousy of a class which had hitherto enjoyed a monopoly of those advantages, and was irritated by the now competition, which a Minister thirsting for popularity hastened to put down by a flagrant violation of law. There was another circumstance which he thought him-
  750
  self at liberty to notice, and which furnished an additional motive for desiring that the representations of Her Majesty's Government should be urged with seriousness and efficient vigour. It was this—Prince Charles, on becoming a candidate for the throne, had received such powerful support; from M. Bratiano that he was naturally unwilling to treat that Minister with the degree of severity which his conduct to all appearance so richly deserved. If any additional reason were needed to explain why he wished this matter to be completely set at rest, it was that whenever Her Majesty's Government chose to interfere, even by way of exception, with the affairs of other countries, they incurred the obligation, and were bound by every consideration of humanity as well as of duty, to use their influence so that those who were placed in positions of authority under their sanction should be restrained from oppressing others by an unjust or illegal exercise of power.
  Moved, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty for Copies of any Correspondence which may have taken place between Her Majesty's Government and the Ottoman Porte or the Hospodar of the Danubian Principalities respecting Measures adopted by the Government of the latter for depriving the Jewish Residents in Moldavia of their Farms and expelling many of them from the Country.—(The Viscount Stratford de Redcliffe.)
  THE EARL OF DENBIGHexpressed his strong disgust at the manner in which these unfortunate Jews appeared to have been treated. From all he had heard there was no adequate cause for the persecution to which they had been subjected; and, indeed, the only reason assigned was that the Jews, a very quiet and industrious part of the population, had been underselling the other inhabitants, and had thus brought upon them the jealousy and hostility of the middle classes. Under these circumstances, he thought Her Majesty's Government ought to exert all the influence it might have over the rulers of that country with the view of obtaining fair and just treatment for the Jewish population. Their Lordships would, he felt assured, agree with him that nothing could be more distressing at any time than persecution on religious grounds; and he trusted we were now entering upon a time when people of all religions would be allowed to worship the God of their own conscience without interference, and to have equal civil and political rights.
  THE EARL OF MALMESBURYsaid, he was not astonished at the great interest

  751
  taken by the noble Viscount (Viscount Stratford de Redcliffe) in the welfare of the inhabitants of a country with which he had been connected for so many years. At the same time it would not be desirable to discuss the matter to-night, because just previously to the noble Viscount's entering the House he had received Her Majesty's permission to lay upon the table the Papers for which the noble Viscount asked. Now, although he had no doubt that the statement of the noble Viscount was correct, as far as the persecution of these men was concerned, still it was an ex parte statement, and till their Lordships had read the Papers, which would be at once laid upon the table, they would hardly be able to judge fairly of the conduct of Her Majesty's Government, nor of the treatment to which the Jews had been subjected. The difficulty was that this question was entirely one of internal government; and it was generally allowed that we ought to interfere as little as possible in the internal affairs of foreign countries. He would, however, say no more at the present time, because their Lordships were not yet in a position to judge of the facts of the case. Of course, if the noble Viscount wished to bring the matter forward on a future occasion, he should be prepared to enter into the discussion of it.
  VISCOUNT STRATFORD DE REDCLIFFEsaid, that after what had just fallen from the noble Earl he would withdraw his Motion, reserving liberty to himself to draw attention to the subject on a future occasion.
  Motion (by Leave of the House) withdrawn.

  EMPLOYMENT OF VOLUNTEERS IN CIVIL DISTURBANCES — THE INSTRUCTIONS.—OBSERVATIONS.
  EARL DE GREYrose to call attention to the Memorandum addressed to the Commanding Officers of Volunteers in regard to the Employment of Volunteers in aid of the Civil Power. He thought that after the discussion which took place on these Instructions in the House of Commons the other night, it would be unnecessary for him to trouble their Lordships at any length; he trusted, however, he should hear from the noble Earl the Under Secretary for War that it was the intention of Her Majesty's Government to modify the Circular, and to state distinctly
  752
  that the Volunteers were not liable to be employed in aid of the civil power, except as far as they might, in common with the rest of Her Majesty's subjects, be called upon to act in their ordinary civil capacity for the maintenance of the public peace. He would ask their Lordships to consider whether the Circular clearly and distinctly laid down the principle which had been affirmed by the other House, and whether, on the contrary, it did not contain certain ambiguities of language which might be productive of great inconvenience in the future, and indeed create dissatisfaction among the Volunteer Corps? With respect to the first paragraph of the Circular there was very little to be said. It was simply a preamble, and the next three paragraphs laid down the principle that the Volunteers were not to be called out as a military body to repress civil disturbances, although they were not, by the mere fact of their being Volunteers, exempt from the liability which devolved on the rest of Her Majesty's subjects, in aiding and assisting in the repression of public disturbances. The fourth paragraph was couched in very ambiguous terms, and here he might point out that, in considering this Circular, it ought to be borne in mind that it was issued by the War Department, and signed by the noble Earl opposite and by the Secretary of State for War. Now, the War Department had nothing whatever to do with the Volunteers in their civil capacity, but only had dealings with them as far as they were a military body. Consequently, the Volunteers would naturally think that any directions given to them by the War Department had reference to their military capacity, and did not refer to them as ordinary subjects of Her Majesty. The Circular referred to cases of riot and disturbance which did not amount to insurrection; but would it not be very difficult for Volunteer officers, not learned in the law, to determine what riots and disturbances came within that definition? So far as he could understand from what had been said in the other House, the Government had simply laid down what ought to be the conduct of Her Majesty's subjects generally when called upon to suppress riots and disturbances. There was also an apparent discrepancy between the fifth and sixth paragraphs. The fifth paragraph referred to the class of disturbance, and laid down that Volunteers might act as special constables, and be armed with staves, but could not be called out as

  753
  Volunteers. The conclusion at which one would arrive was that in the cases contemplated by paragraph No. 6, Volunteers, not acting as a military body, might come out clothed, armed, and accoutred as Volunteers. Volunteers so coming out and acting would be under no regulations whatever; they would not be, as the law stands, acting under the Articles of War. If he was wrong, the noble Earl the Under Secretary for War would correct him; but he believed he was not wrong. They would not be even under the ordinary amount of discipline which Volunteers were subjected to when marching out. It appeared to him highly undesirable that the matter should be left in that way, if it should be the intention of the Government that they should act in cases of civil disturbances in the way in which persons totally disconnected with the Volunteers should do—as in fact the rest of Her Majesty's subjects should act if they were called upon to serve as special constables. If Her Majesty's Government had other intentions—if they thought the circumstances of the country required that they should have power to call out the Volunteers as Volunteers in the suppression of riots—he thought they ought to face the matter—they ought to ask Parliament to make the law what it would have been if the clause to which reference had before been made had been allowed to remain in the Bill, and take power to place the Volunteers under the Mutiny Act. Any set of men acting as special constables would be conducting themselves foolishly if they did not make use of any skill which they might possess in acting as a united body, even though it might result from military discipline—military discipline under the law the Volunteers could have none; but should those men be armed like soldiers, though not acting under military discipline, it appeared to him that the consequences might be very serious. Paragraph No. 9 went further than any of the preceding ones; for it laid down that the Volunteers might act in the emergency therein referred to without the call of the civil authorities. He believed that was the law, as far as it went, with respect to Her Majesty's regular troops; but what had been the practice for a long period? He did not know when it commenced, but I the practice, as laid down in the Queen's Regulations, was that the troops never were to act in civil disturbances, except on the written order of a justice of the peace;
  754
  and that they were never to fire except on the express directions of such an authority. Why was that laid down? No doubt because it was considered that disciplined men acting on such occasions were put to a great strain. If that were sound policy—as he believed it was—with respect to Her Majesty's troops, ought it not to be applied to any other body of disciplined and armed men? It appeared to him that the effect of paragraphs Nos. 6 and 9, if they were carried out, would be very objectionable to Her Majesty's subjects generally, and very invidious to the Volunteers. For what might happen? A rash body of Volunteers might rush out and act as they pleased without the command of any officer. Nothing could be more calculated to bring discredit and odium on the Volunteers, and to shake the confidence of the public in the Volunteer force. It seemed to him that the Government ought to adopt either of two courses They might take the view adopted by Parliament in 1863, and which the House of Commons appeared to approve at present—namely, that the Volunteers should not in case of riot or disturbance act as Volunteers, but just as any of Her Majesty's subjects; or they might go beyond that, and in such cases place Volunteers under military discipline. He hoped the Government would re-consider the terms of the Circular with a view to its modification.
  THE EARL OF LONGFORDsaid, that as he read the Circular, it appeared to him to convey clear and simple instructions, sufficient for the object. The Executive or the magistrates had no more power to call out the Volunteers for the suppression of riot than they had to call out the Members of the Army and Navy Club. The Circular stated that Volunteers, not as Volunteers, but as a portion of Her Majesty's subjects, could be required to serve as special constables, furnished with a staff, but not dressed in military uniform. Further on, it explained that in case of very serious riot, amounting to insurrection or revolt, the Volunteers might use arms to aid the civil power; but any other of Her Majesty's subjects might do the same thing, and the Volunteers in so acting would do so, not in any military character, but simply as citizens. Finally, they were authorized, in defence of their storehouses to act viet armis. In 1863, the Government of the day, foreseeing, perhaps, some such occurrence as that which had taken place at Chester, inserted a clause in the Volunteer Bill which

  755
  would have placed the Volunteers in a different position; but Parliament deliberately rejected that clause, and Her Majesty's Government, accepting the decision of Parliament, merely explain in this Circular the law as it now stands. They had no intention of taking upon themselves the duty of calling out the Volunteers in time of riot; nor did they propose that any power, such as that which would have been given to the Executive by the clause omitted from the Bill of 1863, should be conferred upon them. He might remind the House that the Queen's Regulations contained, in addition to military regulations, a publication of judicial opinions for the guidance of troops; and, in like manner, the Government in issuing this Circular had no intention of issuing elaborate instructions, but simply a few general rules for application in times of difficulty. It was said that the paragraphs of the recent Circular were vague and inconsistent. If they were, the fact showed how difficult it was to lay down rules to be acted on in cases of emergency. To issue in a general Circular precise directions applicable to every possible contingency was, he thought, beyond the ability of any Government. Another objection to the Circular was that its language was at variance with Rule 98 of the Volunteer Regulations, which prohibited an assembling of the force except for certain purposes. But that rule had reference to the ordinary state of affairs, and was quite inapplicable to any of these extraordinary circumstances to which strict regulations could not apply, and under which some one must assume responsibility, and act in defiance of general rules. He thought that the Circular was sufficient for its purpose; but if it should turn out that this was not the case, or should any inconvenience arise from it, the Secretary of State had announced his intention of having it re-considered with the view of seeing whether its terms could be made more satisfactory. The only object of the War Department was to benefit the public service, and to give assistance and guidance to the Volunteer force in the performance of its duties.
  EARL RUSSELLmust express his opinion that the Circular was open to all the objections which had been made to it by his noble Friend. He could not but think that it was very liable to be misunderstood by Volunteer officers, and might very much mislead them; and he thought the Government ought not to wait till some case of inconvenience arose before they corrected
  756
  it. If the paragraphs to which objection had been taken were left out, there was every probability that commanders of Volunteer corps would be able to exercise a sounder judgment and discretion. The noble Earl (the Earl of Longford) had very truly said that it was impossible to foresee, and by the use of any language to provide for every contingency that might arise. It was wise, therefore, to refrain from making the attempt, and to confine the rules to cases with regard to which it was desirable to lay down rules plainly intelligible.
  EARL COWPERsaid, that the Volunteer officers throughout the country would learn with something like dismay that the Government were still only considering whether they would maintain these rules or not. After what had passed in another place, the position of the Volunteers, he thought, was even more difficult than before the issue of these regulations, and must continue to be so until it should be officially made known whether the Instructions were to be modified or not. There could be no doubt that the orders, as they stood, were not popular; and the Government, if they listened to the opinion of the House and of the country, would immediately alter their terms. In the event of any disturbance arising before these were modified, the Volunteers would be placed in a very false position. The instructions were not only vague, but to the eye of the ordinary Volunteer they were absolutely contradictory. In one paragraph Volunteers were told that the civil power was not entitled to call them out, but further on they were informed that the civil authority might call upon Volunteers by every lawful means in their power to aid in suppressing a disturbance. Perplexing questions must also arise as to the meaning of "lawful means." They were not to use their arms, it seemed, but they might avail themselves of their military discipline and organization. Comparing paragraphs 5 and 6, it would be difficult for a simple Volunteer to distinguish when he might and when he might not appear in uniform; but if, in certain cases, Volunteers were entitled to avail themselves of their military skill, and there was at the same time no prohibition of their acting in uniform, it was difficult to discover what difference existed between their so acting as individuals, and acting as a military body. So in regard to the paragraph authorizing Volunteers to act on their own responsibility if the civil authority was not present or within reach—how far was a

  757
  Volunteer officer to send, and how long was he to wait for the civil authority before acting upon his own responsibility, and how was he to measure the extent of a serious disturbance? Under the Instruction the Volunteers might, even in the absence of their officers, make use of their arms, for who was to say what was and what was not a "dangerous" riot? There never was a riot yet in which parties upon the spot did not think that there was serious danger. Was it not the apparent danger that had been the excuse on occasions when lamentable excesses had been committed in suppressing insurrection? Was it not said that the parties "had lost their heads?" In giving instructions to Volunteers, he certainly thought great caution was necessary. The classes who joined the Volunteer Force were principally composed of men with an active turn of mind who wanted something to do, and desired nothing so much as an opportunity of showing their courage and their zeal. What they required was holding in and not urging on; and the danger was rather that they would do too much than too little. But, it might be said, cases could be imagined in which their interference would be absolutely necessary; riots such as those which took place at Bristol formerly might recur, or if the peculiar features of the outbreak at Chester were reproduced, and, with murder, and pillage going on in every direction, were the Volunteers to remain passive spectators? He answered at once that, under such circumstances, be the law what it might, the Volunteers were under no restraint from acting—they could be called upon with the rest of their fellow citizens, to restore law and order. But disturbances of this kind very rarely occurred. He knew the difficulty and delicacy of all proceedings requiring an Act of Indemnity at a latter period; but he believed the true language on this subject had been held by the noble Earl (the Earl of Carnarvon), whose honourable retirement from office inflicted a severe blow on the present Government when writing for the guidance of the West Indian colonists on the question of Martial Law. It might be said that it was unfair to throw on a magistrate or commanding officer the duty of determining at what point the law ought to be broken by the employment of Volunteers. But just as a soldier should not be deterred by the fear of wounds or even of death from doing his duty, so persons placed
  758
  in a position of trust, ought to face the consequences of breaking the law in presence of a clear and overwhelming necessity. Save in these exceptional cases, however, the existence of the law was clearly for the benefit of society, and he therefore hoped Her Majesty's Government would consent to strike out from the instructions the objectionable paragraphs.
  THE EARL OF DENBIGHsaid, that being himself a Volunteer officer, he concurred with every word just uttered by the noble Earl opposite (Earl de Grey) as to the difficulties likely to arise under these Instructions if insisted upon. Volunteers were apt rather to be over zealous than to hang back; and hence, if any riot appeared to be of a serious character, and a magistrate could not be found, they might have very painful scenes occasioned by Volunteers rushing to the front with arms in their hands and deciding for themselves whether the circumstances were such as to warrant their interference. If Volunteers were allowed to use their arms at all, it ought to be under the Mutiny Act, and then persons would know what they were doing.
  VISCOUNT HALIFAXsaid, he hoped some definite answer would be given by Her Majesty's Government before the discussion closed. The mischief of this Circular was that it appeared to give authority to acts which, on the part of the War Office, were expressly disclaimed. It seemed to be thought that because the instructions were drawn up by the Law Officers of the Crown they must necessarily be clear and precise. But his experience, as First Lord of the Admiralty, had taught him that the Law Officers of the Crown were not always the best qualified for drawing instructions for the case of officers. Some years ago, when he was at the Admiralty, it was necessary to issue Instructions for the guidance of captains and commanders in the Navy, serving in the Baltic during the Russian war. He was furnished for that purpose with a document extending over five or six pages, drawn by the Queen's Advocate. The legal accuracy of the document he never for a moment questioned; but he knew it would be perfectly absurd to send out Instructions in that form, which would only have the effect of puzzling the naval officers. The result of the present instructions must be, he feared, to puzzle Volunteer officers. A Volunteer officer at the time of a riot might think himself justified

  759
  in acting with his men with a view to suppress the disturbance without the order of a magistrate. It had been authoritatively stated, in answer to a question as to whether a Volunteer might use Government arms in suppressing a riot, that he might use whatever arms were within his reach. If these Instructions were to be accepted as authoritative and acted on, a Volunteer officer and his men might be found acting with all the appearance and effect of a military force, though it was acknowledged and stated that they could not act as a military body. He hoped the War Department would withdraw the Circular as it stood, and issue another clearly stating what appeared to be the meaning of the Government—that is to say, that, although Volunteers could not be called out as a military force, they were not exempt from the responsibility of acting as ordinary subjects of Her Majesty; that they were not to act as a military body, but as citizens only.
  THE EARL OF CARDIGANthought there was nothing to prevent Volunteers suppressing riots as citizens, but that it must be with arms they happened to have at the time of the outbreak, not with arms supplied to them by the Government; nor should they be permitted to act as suppressors of riots in uniform.
  THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGHsaid, that the fault in the Circular of which their Lordships complained, seemed to him to be rather its bad English than its bad law. It would be a very serious matter indeed if the law were bad; but the difficulty seemed to lie in the fact that the Government had not clearly expressed what every one knew to be the law. A man might certainly read the Circular with an honest desire to act according to law, and yet be unable to do so from not understanding the authoritative exposition. He trusted, however, that it would be found that the civil magistrates would not be under any difficulty respecting what was the law of England relating to the suppression of disturbances. He certainly thought that the obscurity of the Instructions was not so great as had been represented; but he feared that the result of the discussions in that and the other House would be, not to enlighten the Volunteers as to their duty, but only to render them fearful, timid, and undecided in emergencies when the peace of the community was in danger.
  THE EARL OF MALMESBURYsaid,
  760
  that, on behalf of the Government, he could not consent to the request of the noble Viscount (Viscount Halifax) to withdraw the Circular; it was certainly not issued with any desire to puzzle Volunteers, and he did not think noble Lords opposite did justice to the intelligence of the Volunteers in thinking them incapable of understanding it. The Circular's unintelligibility had, in his opinion, been exaggerated; it might, possibly, have been better worded, and if the Government could mend it in this respect Ministers would not have the least objection to try and make it more clear. It should be remembered, when using the word "Volunteers," that a Volunteer was a Volunteer whether in uniform or not; it was only necessary to add that, whether a Volunteer or not, a man was obliged to act as a civilian when called upon by the civil power although not as a Volunteer. It was known, beyond all question and dispute, that a Volunteer could only be called upon in his military capacity to act against a foreign invader. This was the principle on which the Circular had been drawn up, and he believed it was perfectly clear in its terms, and that, it was generally understood, would appear from the fact that not a single official inquiry had been received at the War Office for information respecting its meaning. Of course there had been meetings and discussions about the matter; but that was the natural result of the issue of such a Circular; and the more there were of such discussions the better. But although the Government could not consent to withdraw the Circular, he had no doubt it would be made more clear.
  LORD DE ROSsaid, that in the course of his life he had had considerable experience of riots; and, although the conduct of the military might have been called in question, there had never been any doubt felt as to what was the law on the subject; and he considered that the Circular very adequately explained it.
  LORD OVERSTONEthought that unquestionably there were obscurities in the Circular which ought to be removed. He agreed with the noble Lord opposite (Viscount Halifax) that the effect of these discussions would be to increase the doubts of Volunteers who wanted to know how they ought to act under certain circumstances. He thought a safer guidance would be obtained by an authoritative decision as to the propriety or impropriety of the conduct of Volunteers in special cases. Every one

  761
  knew what had happened at Chester, and he would have it stated by the Government whether what the Volunteers had done there was right or wrong. For instance, it had been said that the Volunteers saved the military stores at Chester; let it, then, be said whether their action in that respect was according to law, and if so, what was the principle on which they had acted?
  EARL DE GREYsaid, that it was clear, from the fact that noble Lords on both sides of the House entertained doubts about the meaning of the Circular, that the language was to a certain extent ambiguous; and it was of the utmost importance that all such doubts should be removed. He trusted, therefore, that the matter would be re-considered, and that the Circular would be deprived of any unnecessary doubt or ambiguity.
  THE EARL OF LONGFORDsaid, that his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for War had already promised that the re-consideration to which the noble Earl referred should be given.

SALMON FISHERY (IRELAND) ACT AMENDMENT BILL.

  (NO. 168.) SECOND READING.
  (The Lord Cranworth).
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
  LORD CRANWORTH, in moving that the Bill be now read the second time, said, that he had introduced the measure in consequence of a Petition which he had a few days previously presented to their Lordships. In that Petition the Petitioner stated that some years since he purchased a salmon fishery of the Encumbered Estates Court; but that, having failed to use it in the years 1861 and 1862, he found, when he was about to use his right of fishing with fixed nets in 1864, that by the Act of 1863 he was precluded from so doing. Not believing that any Act could have contemplated so unjust and retrospective an operation, he appealed to the Court of Queen's Bench, where the decision was confirmed, although its injustice was acknowledged. The Bill, to the second reading of which he now asked their Lordship's assent, provided a remedy for the clause by which so much injustice was committed—a clause against which, he might add, he had protested at the time it was originally before their Lordships' House—by providing that persons entitled to erect fixed nets might do so notwithstanding the pro-
  762
  visions in the Act. The second clause of the Bill extended the time originally allowed for appealing against the decision of the Commissioners, and permitted those who had not appealed to do so, provided they made the appeal within six months after the passing of the present Bill; and the third clause allowed the re-hearing of cases decided by the Court of Queen's Bench against the appellants in consequence of this provision of the Act of 1863 in cases where the petition for re-hearing was presented within six months of the passing of this Bill.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Lord Cranworth.)
  LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYsaid, that the benefit conferred upon the salmon fishery of Ireland by the Act of 1863 had been very great, and that he therefore trusted their Lordships would be careful how they interfered with the operation of that Act, and especially how far they opened a door to litigation of a serious character.
  An Amendment moved to leave out ("now") and insert ("this Day Six Months,")—(Lord Stanley of Alderley.)
  LORD HYLTONdeprecated any interference with legislation, which, on the whole, had been beneficial in its results, in order to meet isolated cases. By so doing they might create a difficulty which would go far to destroy the benefits which had already resulted from the operation of the Act. The present Bill would entirely unsettle the law as settled by the Act of 1863.
  LORD MEREDYTHwas understood to say that the destruction of the weirs, in accordance with the provisions of the Act of 1863, had lead to a great increase of salmon, and now that the fish were more plentiful, certain gentlemen were very desirous of re-erecting weirs, which, from the former scarcity of salmon they had some few years since found to be of no value. He trusted their Lordships would not virtually repeal an Act; that had operated so beneficially.
  VISCOUNT LIFFORDsaid, that the Act of 1842 had almost killed the goose that laid the golden eggs; but the Act of 1863, which restricted the right to fish with fixed nets to those who had so used them in their fishery in the seasons of 1861 and 1862, had done much to remedy the disastrous state of the fisheries. The

  763
  gentleman who had sent the petition had failed to exercise the user required by this beneficial Statute, and had consequently lost his right, and now sought to repeal the beneficial provisions of the Act of 1863 in order to regain it. The Irish Fishery Commissioners reported that the produce of the salmon fisheries in Ireland had very largely increased in consequence of the Act of 1863. If this Bill were passed in its present shape, the appeals to the Queen's Bench would be endless, and the entire object of the Bill of 1863 would be lost. If, however, the noble and learned Lord would name some period for the exercise of these rights, and would exclude bag nets from the first clause, the measure might not be an unfair one to pass.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORdeprecated a revival of the discussion of the Irish Salmon Fishery Bill. The noble Lord (Viscount Lifford) had gone back to the Act of 1842, by which certain rights were created and others confirmed. It had been argued that as Parliament could create rights so it could extinguish them; but that was a position he (the Lord Chancellor) utterly denied. He agreed that it was proper to put some limit to the exercise of these rights with regard to stake nets and bag nets; but, undoubtedly, where persons had not abandoned the use of their stake nets and bag nets before 1862, but accidentally, or for some personal reason, had not used them in that year, it did seem most unjust to say that these rights should be forfeited. The Bill proposed to put an end to that gross injustice, and, with some limitation upon the rights of parties, it would receive his support.
  THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDEsaid, that wrong, injustice, and confiscation had taken place under the Act of 1863, and the Fishery Commissioners had been armed with arbitrary powers which ought not to be given to any set of men. He denied the accuracy of the statement made by the Fishery Commissioners with respect to the increased catch of salmon. Anglers might have found better sport, and at particular places the fishery might have improved; but his inquiries led to the conclusion that the additional supply of Irish salmon was inappreciable in the London market, while in Dublin the same prices ruled as in previous years.
  After a few words in reply from Lord CRANWORTH,
  On Question, That ("now") stand Part of the Motion? their Lordships divided:—Contents 29; Not-Contents 22: Majority 7.

  CONTENTS.

  Chelmsford, L. (L. Chancellor.)

  Clinton, L.

  Cranworth, L. [Teller.]

  Crofton, L.

  Buckingham and Chandos, D.

  Denman, L.

  De Ros, L.

  Grafton, D.

  Feversham, L.

  Richmond, D.

  Lyveden, L.

  Penrhyn, L.

  Amherst, E.

  Redesdale, L.

  Bantry, E.

  Romilly, L.

  Cadogan, E.

  Saltersford, L. (E. Courtown.)

  Dartmouth, E.

  Gainsborough, E.

  Silchester, L. (E. Longford.)

  Haddington, E.

  Malmesbury, E.

  Somerhill, L. (M. Clanricarde.) [Teller.]

  Powis, E.

  Stanhope, E.

  Stratheden, L.

  Templemore, L.

  Cairns, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Abercorn, M.

  Clonbrock, L.

  Delamere, L.

  Airlie, E.

  Foley, L.

  Cowper, E.

  Granard, L. (E. Granard.)

  De Grey, E.

  Devon, E.

  Grinstead, L. (E. Ennis illen.)

  Harrowby, E.

  Kimberley, E. [Teller.]

  Hylton, L.

  Romney, E.

  Meredyth, L. (L. Athlumney.)

  Tankerville, E.

  Yarborough, E.

  Minster, L. (M. Conyngham.)

  De Vesci, V.

  Ponsonby, L. (E. Bessborough.)

  Lifford, V.

  Stanley of Alderley, L. [Teller.]

  Bagot, L.

  Resolved in the Affirmative.
  Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House To-morrow.

COURT OF CHANCERY (OFFICERS) BILL.—(The Lord Chancellor.)

  (NO. 154.) COMMITTEE.
  House in Committee (according to Order.)
  Clause 1 (relating to appointment of additional Chief Clerks and Junior Clerks).
  THE LORD CHANCELLORmoved a new proviso with reference to the filling up of vacancies in the offices of Chief Clerks and Junior Clerks, providing that the Lord Chancellor shall not fill such vacancies unless the number of Chief Clerks is reduced below two, and of Junior Clerks below four; except with the consent of three of the Chancery Judges.
  Proviso added to the Bill.
  After Clause 8—
  LORD ROMILLYproposed to insert a new clause of a permissive and not a compulsory character in reference to the appointment of a number of Official Liquidators as Officers of the Court, and under a joint security. He was satisfied that if the plan were adopted it would be productive of great benefit. It would prevent contests between equally fit and competent men; and there was a precedent for it in a recent Act of Parliament, which sanctioned the appointment of Official Conveyancers. The Liquidators were to be paid, as hitherto, merely for the work done, just as the Conveyancers still were. By adopting the course he proposed, and appointing a list of men in large business and of high respectability, the Court could dispense with a great amount of the security it now demanded, and thereby diminish the costs charged on estates, and at the same time obtain a better collective security than it got at present. He would not, however, press the clause if the Lord Chancellor objected to it.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, he could not assent to the proposed clause, although he agreed that something ought to be done in reference to this matter. If ten or twelve Official Liquidators were appointed by the Court, or by the Lord Chancellor, no sufficient security could be taken from them for the delivery of the monies which passed through their hands, because the amount was so enormous. Then, again, under such a system, the Court would be held responsible in the event of any default on the part of the Liquidators, whereas now the parties elected their Official Liquidators, and had to take the consequences.
  LORD ROMILLYsaid, that if there were nine or ten Official Liquidators they might all agree to give a joint and several bond.
  Clause negatived.
  Amendments made; the Report thereof to be received To-morrow, and Bill to be printed as amended. (No. 194.)

CASE OF THE "TORNADO."

  QUESTION.
  THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDEasked, Whether Her Majesty's Government have received a decisive answer as to the course the Spanish Government intended to pursue with respect to the
  766
  Tornado; and whether a Tribunal has been specially constituted for the Trial of that Ship? It seemed to him high time that proper steps should be taken to obtain for the sailors and officers of the Tornado compensation for the hardships which they had been compelled to endure. The Papers laid before their Lordships showed that these men were captured in the vessel on the 20th of August last, and were grievously maltreated. Some of them were wounded, some were put in irons, and they were all very badly treated, being kept for weeks without any water for the purpose of ablution, and without any sort of comfort or even decency. They were subsequently put in prison at Cadiz, and questioned in such a manner that they were forced to give answers which they subsequently acknowledged to be false. It was only in consequence of the vigorous interference of Her Majesty's Government that they were eventually released. They had since applied to the Foreign Office, for some compensation; but that had been refused on the ground that the trial of the ship must take place before any decision could be made upon their claims. That, he thought, was very hard upon these poor men. They had been wrongly kept in prison several months, and there certainly was no reason for liberating them in January or February which did not exist in the previous August. Then they were actually robbed of their money and of the tools which, to some of them, were necessary to carry on their trade, and had thus been deprived of the means of obtaining employment. According to the last Papers which had been presented on the subject, there was no chance of these men getting their claim allowed for a very considerable time. If it were true that the ship was really a Chilian ship and that the Spaniards were really entitled to seize her, these men would have a remedy against those who had put them on board what was falsely represented to be an English merchant ship. At present they were unable to get redress from either party. Was it not intolerable, he would ask, that English sailors should be treated in such a manner? Nothing could be more admirable than the reasoning of Lord Stanley throughout his despatch. What we had a right to insist on was that there should be a fair trial. The ship was captured under the exercise of belligerent rights; but what we said was that there should be a proper trial—a trial in whatever form the Spanish Go-

  767
  vernment might please, but one which, in substance, must be in conformity with justice and with International Law. It had been stated in reply that the parties concerned should be tried. That language had been continued till the middle of May, but what was the fact? On the 8th of February, a decree was pronounced in the case of the Alice Ward—a case somewhat analogous to that of the Tornado—by which it was laid down that the judicial courts could not take cognizance of the affair. That decree had been recognized by the Spanish Government. Lord Stanley urged over and over that the case of the Tornado should be tried by a competent tribunal, and all that time the Spanish Government kept up the belief that it was to be treated judicially. Lord Stanley had allowed a great deal of correspondence to take place not on the question of a trial, but on the merits of the case. Unfortunately the noble Lord had strayed into that style of correspondence also, and a great deal of irrelevant matter had been introduced into what ought only to have been a discussion as to a trial. He was not asking too much when he insisted that British subjects should not be defrauded of their rights. If the tribunal to which the matter had been referred was incompetent, the Spanish Government were bound to give up the ship, and our Government should not lose a day in compelling them to do so or to take the consequences of a refusal.
  THE EARL OF MALMESBURY: I think my noble Friend will agree that in the present state of the House he can hardly expect me to go into all the details of this question. The last accounts we have from the Spanish Government are dated, I think, the 20th of June, and have already been published. According to them the case is still before the Council of State of the Spanish Government and has proceeded no further. My noble Friend knows what is called cosas d' Espana; and he is well aware of the extreme difficulty of overcoming the passive resistance in which the Government of that country is so peculiarly clever. I need not remind my noble Friend of the great difference between the case of the Victoria and that of the Tornado. Without wishing to prejudge the case of the owners of the Tornado, they are not in as favourable a position as the owners of the Victoria. Nothing could have been more plain than the outrage done to the latter vessel. The Spaniards could not deny it. They at
  768
  once admitted it. The only thing Her Majesty's Government can do in the present case of the Tornado is to accept the promises of the Spanish Government, that the case will be fairly tried. My noble Friend knows that the sailors have been released. The time may come, of course, when our patience, even measured by the experience we have had of Spanish cases, would be exhausted. For the present, I can assure the noble Marquess that my noble Friend the Secretary for Foreign Affairs does not lose sight of this matter. It is, as I have stated, only ten days since the last despatches were received from Spain.
  THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDEhoped the Government had not agreed to accept any tribunal which the Spanish Government chose to nominate for the purpose.
  THE EARL OF MALMESBURYsaid, the Government had not agreed to accept anything, because they did not know the propositions of the Spanish Government. The case was hung up.

  TRUSTS (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill to facilitate the Administration of Trusts in Scotland—Was presented by The LORD CHANCELLOR; read 1a. (No. 195.)
  House adjourned at a quarter before Eight o'clock, till To-morrow, half past Ten o'clock.