Lords Sitting of 20 June 1871

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Life Assurance Companies Act (1870) Amendment* (195).
Second Reading—Oyster and Mussel Fisheries Supplemental (No. 2)* (183); Pier and Harbour Orders Confirmation (No. 2)* (183); Metropolitan Commons Supplemental (No. 2)* (174); Land Drainage Supplemental* (175); Poor Law (Provisional Orders Confirmation)* (163); Drainage and Improvement of Lands (Ireland) Supplemental* (172); Police Courts (Metropolis)* (125); Petroleum* (189).
Second Reading—Referred to Select Committee—Locomotives (130); Burial Grounds (181).
Report—Betting (129); Gasworks Clauses Act (1847) Amendment (No. 2)* (192).
Third Reading—Charters (Colleges) (93); Pier and Harbour Orders Confirmation (No. 1)* (127); Lunacy Regulation Amendment (171), and passed Landlord and Tenant (Ireland) Act, 1870, Amendment (193), debate adjourned.

LOCOMOTIVES BILL—(No. 130.)
(The Earl of Dunmore.)
LOCOMOTIVES BILL—(No. 130.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  THE EARL OF DUNMORE, in moving that the Bill be now read the second time, said, that the object of the measure was to consolidate the law regulating the use of locomotives on roads. For this purpose it proposed to repeal and to reenact with modifications "The Locomotives Act, 1861" and "The Locomotives Act, 1865." The principal modifications were these. It substituted an entirely new scale of tolls to be taken after the passing of this Act; it established new regulations as to the weight and size of locomotives, the breadth of the wheels, and the weight to be placed on each pair; and it provided new rules for the manner of working locomotives on turnpike roads and highways. By the Act of 1865 it was provided that three persons should accompany every road steamer; that one of them should precede it by at least 60 yards, displaying a red flag; and that the speed should not exceed four miles an hour in the country, and two miles an hour in towns and villages. Those restrictions were very inconvenient—the man with the red flag was a positive nuisance, frightening horses which might otherwise pass the steamer quietly. This Bill enacted that two persons should be required to work each locomotive, and if more than two waggons were attached, an additional person should be employed. The man with the red flag was abolished. The usual pace of drays and vans was three or four miles an hour, and the Bill proposed that locomotives should be allowed the pace of four miles in towns and villages and eight miles in the country. The present crawling pace generated an excess of steam in the boilers, the discharge of which occasioned much noise. In towns the local authorities would be able to impose what restrictions they chose on locomotives running within their area, and he did not suppose that the actual speed on country roads would exceed five or six miles. Traction engines had been much improved since the existing Acts were passed, and great benefit would accrue to traders and the public from their becoming a substitute for horse labour, which was very expensive.
  290
  Coalmasters, moreover, were sometimes unable to undertake contracts on account of the insufficient supply of railway trucks. In one case a coalowner lost a contract for 30,000 tons of coals for want of the assistance afforded by steam traction engines. It had been proved that steam omnibuses were practicable, an experiment made in Paris last year being highly successful. The engines there run at the rate of 10 miles an hour without occasioning any inconvenience. They had also been recently tried at Edinburgh, and with success; and they would open up communications with places at some distance from a railway, in cases where a branch line would be too costly to be remunerative.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Earl of Dunmore.)
  THE EARL OF MORLEYsaid, he was unwilling to oppose the second reading; but considering the important questions it involved, he would suggest that it should be referred to a Select Committee. He agreed with the noble Earl that the man with the red flag was more likely to frighten horses than to act as a safeguard. Captain Tyler, of the Board of Trade, had drawn up a Report on the subject which was generally favourable to the Bill, while recommending certain safeguards. The increased speed now proposed would greatly increase the number of locomotives; but many points would require consideration, such as the tolls, for these steamers caused damage to roads, and turnpikes were likely to be abolished. He therefore hoped the noble Earl would assent to his proposal.
  LORD KINNAIRDurged the noble Earl to accept the suggestion. With regard to damage which steamers might do, his experience showed that their broad wheels rather tended to improve the roads over which they passed by acting as rollers; in fact, they did less damage than a horse.
  THE EARL OF KIMBERLEYsaid, his experience was exactly the reverse of that of the noble Lord. He had often heard grievous complaints of the utter ruin traction engines wrought on the roads, though he admitted that the wheels might possibly be so adapted as to prevent the damage complained of.
  EARL GREYsupported the Bill, remarking that steam ploughs, which caused a much greater nuisance than

  291
  road steamers, were subject to no restrictions. He looked forward to ploughs as well as carts and waggons being drawn by these steamers; and if the Bill, after reference to a Select Committee, did not pass this Session, he hoped the House would refuse to renew the existing Act.
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and referred to a Select Committee.
  And, on Thursday, June 23, the Lords following were named of the Committee:—

  D. Northumberland.

  L. Elphinstone.

  E. Kellie.

  L. Vernon.

  E. Radnor.

  L. Rossie.

  E. Carnarvon.

  L. Dunmore.

  K. Grey.

  L. Barrogill.

  E. Morley.

  L. Monck.

  And, on June 23, The Earl Cowper and The Lord Ravens worth added.

BURIAL GROUNDS BILL—(No. 181.)
(The Earl Beauchamp.)
BURIAL GROUNDS BILL—(No. 181.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  EARL BEAUCHAMP, in moving that the Bill be now read the second time, said, he had introduced this Bill with the object of preventing those acerbities of feeling which too often arose between the Dissenters and the members of the Church of England at a moment when such feelings were peculiarly undesirable. On the one hand the Dissenters were apt to demand what they were not entitled to by law, and on the other the clergyman was too desirous of ignoring the rights to which his Dissenting brethren were undoubtedly entitled. It was the undoubted right of every parishioner to be buried in the parish churchyard. The Bill consisted of two provisions only. In the first place, it enacted that any parishioner not entitled to burial according to the rites of the Church of England may be interred in the churchyard of the parish without the Burial Service of the Church, provided notice shall have been given to the officiating minister of the parish. The other enactment was, that on the application of any three ratepayers within a Poor Law Union to the Secretary of State, the latter may require the Board of Guardians to provide one or more burial grounds for the burial of persons with rites and ceremonies other than those of the Church of England.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 2a."—(The Earl Beauchamp.)
  THE EARL OF MORLEYsaid, he must oppose the Bill, which appeared to have been very hastily drawn. The first clause enacted that any person not entitled to burial according to the rites of the Church of England might be buried in the churchyard, provided notice were given to the clergyman; but as the clergyman was to have no power of refusal, no purpose would be served by the notice. The 2nd clause would enable any three discontented ratepayers to induce the Home Secretary to compel a Board of Guardians, without consulting the ratepayers, to provide a burial ground, in which persons might be buried with rites and ceremonies other than those of the Church of England. No provision was made that the ratepayers should be consulted, as was the case in every other parochial proceeding—in fact, so far as the Bill went, they were to have no voice in the matter. He thought he had said enough to satisfy their Lordships that the Bill ought not to be read a second time.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYregretted to hear the noble Earl dispose of the Bill in so exceedingly summary a manner. No doubt the question it dealt with was one of serious difficulty. On the one hand there was the profound objection of the clergy of the Church of England—and, indeed, of the laity also—to services other than that of the Church of England within the churchyard; while, on the other hand, Dissenters in some places suffered under a practical grievance in not being allowed to bury their dead in the churchyard with their own services, while they were not provided with any other place where they could do so. It was a matter, therefore, of some importance to find a middle term between these exigencies, and to remedy a real grievance while avowing the embarrassment of protracted controversy. Therefore, he approved of the Bill generally; but the clauses required the addition of some safeguards by the Committee. As to the 1st, he was sure it was never intended to permit processions and orations within the churchyard; and as to the 2nd, he thought it would be sufficient to give authority, at the expense of those who desired it, to purchase under the Lands Clauses Act land for burial grounds in parishes where burial grounds for Dissenters could not be found without such

  293
  power. In Committee the clauses might be altered so as to be acceptable to the Government; and, considering that they were not likely to settle the question themselves at present, it was scarcely right that they should so cavalierly refuse to entertain the Bill.
  LORD PORTMANobjected to any measure which would increase local taxation, and especially to the proposition that any three ratepayers of the Union should be enabled to move the Secretary of State to impose such an expenditure on the Union. A Select Committee on the question might be desirable, or their Lordships might wait for a Bill to come up from the other House, where the matter had been much discussed.
  THE BISHOP OF WINCHESTERagreed with the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Salisbury) that this was a very grave question. It was much better that their Lordships should endeavour to adjust the question by independent action, meeting the reasonable object both of the Dissenters and of those who upheld the rights of the Church of England, than that they should wait for the Bill, which had been for a long time struggling to got through the other House, and which when it did come up might be found to contain provisions which could not be granted, but the rejection of which would be invidious. He agreed with the noble Marquess that some Bill should be introduced to meet the reasonable desires of Dissenters, and prevent that irritation which might be difficult to allay by legislation. It was a great hardship to those who dissented from the Church of England, and who objected to the services used by the Church over the dead, that they should be in any way compelled, as the condition of a parishioner's right to be buried in the churchyard, to have that service road at the burial. They ought to remove as much as possible everything which savoured of those unhappy divisions which at present existed. If he were a conscientious Dissenter, and disapproved of the Burial Service of the Church, of England, he should feel it a hard thing to be obliged, on bearing the body of his child to its last resting place, to have a service read of which he disapproved, and which was repugnant to his feelings. The Dissenters had a real grievance, which it was the duty of
  294
  Parliament to redress. On the other hand, to allow services to be read in the churchyard different to that of the Church of England would be an absolute violation of the principle of an Established Church, and would undoubtedly lead to the most painful opposition, hostility, and acerbity at the very moment when all parties should wish to exclude them. It would make the churchyard the arena of acrimonious contests, and would give persons who denied the existence of a future state the opportunity of declaring that the deceased had ceased to be, and that they did not indulge the vain dream of a resurrection. The noble Earl's Bill would not meet the difficulty, for Unions might extend over many miles, and Dissenters being frequently the poorest part of the population, it would not be right to tell them they could bury their dead in their own way at a place 12 miles off. Probably the best way of meeting the difficulty would be that the acquisition of separate grounds in parishes should be facilitated, and landowners whose estates were strictly entailed might be allowed on such and such terms to grant a small piece of ground for the use of Dissenting communities. This would be a great relief. He did not want to rigidly enforce the rules of the Church of England, but to make liberal allowance for those who did not wish for its service. He thought that when the deceased before death, or his friends after it, objected to the Church service, he should be entitled to honourable and reverential burial in the churchyard, with no service in the churchyard, after whatever service they pleased in their own place of worship before entering the churchyard. A Select Committee might devise a scheme which would prevent their Lordships being troubled another Session with a question likely to excite acrimonious feeling.
  EARL BEAUCHAMPsaid, all he sought was to remove an admitted evil in the speediest and most satisfactory way possible. He had no objection to the reference of the Bill to a Select Committee.
  THE DUKE OF CLEVELANDsaid, all their Lordships must desire that this question should be settled; but he doubted if the Bill would cure the evil it was intended to deal with. He thought the general feeling of their

  295
  Lordships was that this Bill could not be accepted; but he hoped the Government would assent to the course proposed, in order that a measure might be devised which would remedy the existing grievance without being open to the objections to which the Bill was at present open.
  THE EARL OF MORLEYsaid, he should be happy to assent to the proposal on the part of Her Majesty's Government, in the earnest hope that this question, which had given rise to such deep feeling, might be settled in some satisfactory manner.
  LORD PORTMANobjected to the Bill being referred to a Select Committee.
  THE EARL OF MORLEYexplained that what he had meant to assent to was the reference of the subject, not of the Bill, to a Select Committee. The Government could not in any case be regarded as pledged to support the provisions of the Bill.
  THE DUKE OF SOMERSETsaid, he thought it would be better to go to a Select Committee on the recital, whether it was expedient to amend the law of burial in England and Wales, and not hamper themselves with the clauses by reading the Bill a second time, but leave it to the Select Committee to devise a plan that might be acceptable to both sides of the House.
  THE DUKE OF RICHMOND, for the reasons given by the noble Duke (the Duke of Cleveland), hoped their Lordships would give the measure a second reading. As the noble Duke had said, their Lordships objected to both the two operative clauses of the Bill, and therefore there was nothing left to be laid before the Select Committee but the Preamble of the Bill—namely, "whereas it is expedient to amend the law of burials in England and Wales." Now, it was because he thought it was expedient to amend the law of burials that he wanted their Lordships to assent to the second reading. Unless they were agreed as far as that went, there would be nothing at all to go before a Select Committee.
  EARL GRANVILLEbelieved there was a general agreement among their Lordships as to the object to be attained. It seemed to be thought that while that Bill was not one which the House should adopt, the question to which it related was one that it was desirable to
  296
  endeavour to settle. The case might, perhaps, be met by referring the Bill at once to a Select Committee.
  LORD REDESDALEsaid, the Bill could not be committed until it had been read the second time.
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and referred to a Select Committee.
  And, on Tuesday, Juno 27, the Lords following were named of the Committee:—

  D. Somerset.

  E. Morley.

  D. Cleveland.

  E. Beauchamp.

  M. Salisbury.

  V. Eversley.

  M. Bristol.

  L. Bp. Winchester.

  E. Airlie.

  L. Boyle.

  E. Dartmouth.

  L. Belper.

  E. Carnarvon.

  L, Lyveden.

  E. Nelson.

  L. Westbury.

CHARTERS (COLLEGES) BILL.—(No. 73.)
(The Lord Privy Seal.)
CHARTERS (COLLEGES) BILL.—(No. 73.)

  THIRD READING.
  Order of the Day for the Third Reading, read.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 3a."—(The Lord Privy Seal.)
  LORD REDESDALEsaid, the Bill provided that in case of the grant of any charter for the foundation of any college or University, a copy of such charter shall be laid before Parliament for not less than 30 days before it was presented to Her Majesty for signature, and that during that period either House might present an Address to Her Majesty praying her to withhold her signature. Now, this was not only an invasion of the prerogative of the Crown, but was directly opposed to the grounds on which the Government resisted the Amendments of his noble Friend near him (the Marquess of Salisbury) on the University Tests Bill. He was surprised that any Government should have introduced such a measure as this.
  VISCOUNT HALIFAXdefended the Government in bringing in this Bill, pointing out that there was a great distinction between the proposal of the University Tests Bill and the principle of the present Bill.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid, the state of legislation on this subject stood thus:—The fellows of colleges were considered sufficiently trustworthy to be entitled to alter or modify their charters to any extent without the consent of Parliament; but the Crown was thought so inferior to fellows of colleges, and so utterly untrustworthy, that secu-

  297
  rities were required in regard to the action of the Crown, which, were considered superfluous and ridiculous in regard to the action of the colleges. This was a curious position to which, the various exigencies of sectarian animosity had driven Her Majesty's Government. He sympathized with the Government in having to swallow so many contradictions; but that was one of the penalties attached to holding office by the consent of a somewhat unruly party. The present Bill was not only objectionable as derogating from the prerogative of the Crown, but as a singularly useless piece of legislation, the only result of which would be to make trustees more commonly used than charters.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, there was a wide difference between the case of the fellows of colleges under the University Tests Bill and the position of the Crown under this Bill. No analogy could be drawn between them.
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 3a accordingly with the Amendments, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

LUNACY REGULATION AMENDMENT BILL—(No. 171.)—(The Lord Chancellor.)

  THIRD READING.
  Order of the Day for the Third Reading, read.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 3a."—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  LORD CAIRNSsaid, he looked upon the Bill as a somewhat dangerous measure, inasmuch as it would make a new class of persons the subjects of lunacy jurisdiction. It proposed that "persons of weak mind" should be brought within the jurisdiction of the Lord Chancellor. The term "person of weak mind" was very vague and indefinite, and was not made much more certain by the definition. Neither was there any indication of who might originate proceedings in lunacy against a "person of weak mind." The Bill merely provided "that on a petition presented in a summary manner," the Lord Chancellor might make an order. This might lead to very improper proceedings. The jurisdiction which was to be created by the Bill was one altogether unknown in this country, and he trusted that his noble and learned Friend would pause before carrying into effect a measure of this nature.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, he was somewhat surprised at the objection
  298
  raised by his noble and learned Friend, because until this moment he had not the slightest idea that his noble and learned Friend viewed the measure unfavourably. The provisions contained in the Bill were, he believed, much needed in those cases where a man, though not actually insane, was physically and mentally incapable of managing his own affairs; and as the powers conferred were surrounded by ample safeguards, he trusted that his noble and learned Friend would not press his objection.
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 3a accordingly, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

LANDLORD AND TENANT (IRELAND) ACT (1870) AMENDMENT BILL.
(The Lord Cairns.)
LANDLORD AND TENANT (IRELAND) ACT (1870) AMENDMENT BILL.

  (NOS. 185, 193.) THIRD READING.
  Order of the Day for the Third Reading, read.
  Moved, "That the Bill be now read 3a—(The Lord Cairns.)
  LORD GREVILLEsaid, the object of the measure was to resolve some doubts in regard to the Landlord and Tenant Act, which had been raised by a recent judgment of a Lord Justice of Appeal, and had been hastily introduced and pressed through its stages with great rapidity. But as there was an important point affecting the conveyance of property in regard to the Ulster custom, on which it was desirable to take legal opinion, he hoped the noble and learned Lord who had charge of the Bill (Lord Cairns) would postpone the third reading for a day or two.
  LORD CAIRNSsaid, that under the circumstances stated he would not object to postpone the third reading.
  LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNEconfessed to a feeling of anxiety from the course adopted with reference to this Bill. The Judges appointed to carry out the provisions of the Irish Land Act were not, as was the case with the other Judges, paid fixed salaries. Beyond question the Judges of this Court would carry out the law with the same independence as the other Judges of the land; yet as this state of things was calculated to create an impression in the public mind that they would lean to the wishes of the Government rather more than to the dictates of strict justice, he

  299
  maintained that it ought to be corrected. The Bill, moreover, would leave the purchaser in doubt, and would place him in a worse position than the present owner. With regard to the power of advancing money to tenants to purchase their farms, he was of opinion that, instead of the power given under the 40th clause of the Laud Act, it would be better to advance to tenants nine-tenths of the amounts necessary, and to limit the purchase to be given to 19 years. By this means the tenant would pay as interest the same amount he now paid in the form of rent, and every year he would approach more nearly the time when he would become the owner of the farm he occupied.
  LORD CAIRNSsuggested that the debate should be postponed until Friday next.
  Further debate on the said Motion adjourned to Friday next.

ENDOWED SCHOOLS.

  MOTION FOR A RETURN.
  LORD BUCKHURSTmoved, That there be laid before the House a Copy of the List of Endowed Schools which it is proposed to include in the Scheme of the Endowed Schools Commissioners, to be submitted during the present year. Those schemes had so widely departed from what was contemplated that they had caused a wide-spread feeling of alarm. The large schools coming under the notice of the Commissioners might have ample time to consider their position when the scheme for their re-organization was submitted to them, and had the power of appealing. But the large number of small schools — those with incomes not exceeding £100 a-year—would have no appeal at all. It was in order that their Lordships might have information what schools the Commissioners proposed to deal with that he moved for this Return. Mr. Forster had stated in "another place" that he could point out several most excellent schools which were discovered in the course of their inquiry, and that objections to the Bill he was then about to introduce did not come from the bad, but from the good schools. "Now," said Mr. Forster, "I wish to assure them it is not for the good schools the Bill is intended, though we cannot, of course, exempt such schools by name."
  300
  According to its Preamble the Endowed Schools Act was passed with the object of providing for the greater efficiency of schools, and of carrying into effect the main designs of the founders thereof by putting within the reach of all classes a liberal education. These, however, were not the principles on which the Commissioners proposed to act.
  Moved that there be laid before this House, Copy of the List of Endowed Schools which it is proposed to include in the Scheme of the Endowed School Commissioners to be submitted during the present year.—(The Lord Buckhurst.)
  EARL DE GREY AND RIPONsaid, their Lordships would see that it was impossible he could accede to the Motion, because, in the first place, there was, as a matter of fact, no list in existence of the endowed schools which it was proposed to include in the scheme of the Endowed Schools Commissioners to be submitted during the present year: and secondly, it would be impossible for the Endowed Schools Commissioners to say, either now or at the beginning of the Session, what were the schools in regard to which they proposed to frame schemes. That, indeed, would depend, among other things, whether the schemes were appealed against under the provisions of the Act: it would also depend on the length of time over which the correspondence between the Commissioners and the persons interested in the localities might extend. All the schemes were under the provisions of the Act, and as the Commissioners placed themselves in the fullest communication with all persons interested in the localities, it was impossible to say what length of time might elapse before the Commissioners were in a position to place any particular scheme on the Table of the House. Consequently, it would be an impossibility to make out such a list as the noble Lord (Lord Buckhurst) had moved for. The noble Lord had said that his main objection had reference to the danger to which small endowments were exposed. Now, he would remind their Lordships that under the provisions of the Act all schemes, whether relating to large or to small endowments, had to be laid before both Houses of Parliament. That which the persons interested in small endowments were deprived of, and which large endowments possessed, was the right of appeal in the shape in which it was given by the

  301
  clauses of the Act; but every person interested in a small endowment, though he had not the right of appealing in the manner provided by the Act, had the most perfect right and opportunity of appealing in the ordinary, but not in the legal, sense of the word to the Education Department of the Privy Council. Neither his right hon. Friend (Mr. W. E. Forster) nor himself would dream for a moment of disregarding any such representation which might be made to them. Therefore, all that the small endowments were deprived of was the technical right of legal appeal:—which, he might remark, involved a considerable amount of expense. As all these schemes would lie on the Table of the House for 40 days, and as everybody interested in them would have a right to appeal personally to the Commissioners, then to the Education Department, and after that to every Member of this and of the other House of Parliament, he did not think any additional security would be afforded to them by the sort of anticipatory notice of the schemes which were being considered by the Commissioners. He wished to make one remark with respect to what fell from the noble Lord in reference to the operations of the Endowed Schools Commissioners. The noble Lord had said that the proceedings of the Commissioners were, in his opinion, inconsistent with the understanding on which the Endowed Schools Act was passed. It was impossible to reply to general objections of that kind; but if the noble Lord would, on the occasion of any particular scheme being considered in that House, repeat that statement, and prove its correctness in regard to that scheme, he should be perfectly prepared to discuss the question fairly with the noble Lord. He could only say that, whatever might be the individual opinions of the Commissioners, he was confident they felt it to be their bounden duty to act strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Act of Parliament; and that where their opinions did not coincide with the Act they would, from their high character, carry out the wishes of the Legislature in preference to their own.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYthought that if the noble Earl (Earl de Grey and Ripon) had been in his place in that House some weeks ago, and not in America, he would not have thrown out the present challenge to his noble
  302
  Friend. He (the Marquess of Salisbury) did state in that House that Mr. Forster had said that those schools which were not ill-managed endowments had nothing to fear from the operation of the Act; but it would, he believed, be very easy to show, on a future occasion, that endowments had been dealt with by the Endowed Schools Commissioners which did not come under the designation of ill-managed endowments. He did not rise for the purpose of provoking a discussion now, as that would be to anticipate the Notice he had placed on the Paper; but he wished to make an appeal to his noble Friend with regard to the notice given to these small endowments. It might seem very exacting to say so; but the truth was that the period of 40 days given by the Act to appeal to that House was practically in many cases very much abridged. In the first place, the Endowed Schools Commissioners laid schemes on the Table before they were in print, the result being that of the precious 40 days a considerable number passed away before the schemes became public and were brought under their Lordships' consideration. Thus the Emanuel School scheme was kept unprinted for eight days, during which time their Lordships did not know exactly what it was. This was one inconvenience, and there were other inconveniences attending the notice given to the Houses of Parliament. Indeed, it often was almost impossible for these small endowments to put themselves in motion till the time had passed when, according to the ordinary practice of the two Houses, a day could be named for discussion. Therefore, he thought it but fair that some notice should be given to the smaller endowments that they were in the list of proscriptions laid on the Table by the Endowed Schools Commissioners. If the Commissioners would make out a list of the endowments with which they intended to deal, and if his noble Friend would allow such list to be published, it would be a very considerable convenience. This was the suggestion he had to make as an alternative suggestion to that of his noble Friend who had brought forward the present Motion.
  EARL DE GREY AND RIPONpromised to consider the suggestion respecting the printing of the schemes; and in regard to the other suggestion of the noble Marquess pointed out that every

  303
  endowment had an individual notice of at least three months.
  LORD LYTTELTONsaid, the schemes came in one by one, and it was impossible to state at what precise time a particular scheme would be laid before Parliament.
  LORD BUCKHURST, in withdrawing his Motion, said, he thought a list of all the schools which were to come under consideration should be supplied.
  LORD LYTTELTONsaid, a list would be found in the Report of the Endowed Schools Commissioners.
  Motion (by Leave of the House) withdrawn.

TREATY OF WASHINGTON.—QUESTION.
LORD CAIRNSrose to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Why the date of the 9th April 1865, was inserted in the Washington Treaty as the limit of time for British claims; and what is to be done as to claims arising from occurrences after that date, and before the termination of the American Civil War. His Question had reference to claims other than the Alabama claims, to be made on the part of British subjects against the United States' Government. The limit of time within which they must have arisen was described in the Treaty in this way:—"The period between the 30th of April, 1861, and the 9th of April, 1865," and he wished to know why the latter date had been adopted. Several British subjects had communicated with him respecting the manner in which they were affected by the insertion of this date, and he would take as an example a British mercantile firm at New Orleans which closed their transactions at the beginning of the war and realized their funds. Owing to the inconvenience of remitting money in the ordinary way they invested their funds in cotton, to be shipped at the close of the war, which was the most convenient mode at that time of remitting money to this country. On the 11th of April, two days after the date fixed by the Treaty, their cotton was burnt; and they considered—whether rightly or wrongly he did not say—that they had a claim against the United States' Government which they would be entitled to make if it were not that they were precluded by the date named in the Treaty. He had vainly endeavoured to find out what
304
could be the reason for fixing upon that date. The question arose, could it be that of the termination of the war?—but that could not be, because on the 26th of April, General Johnson, commanding the Confederate Army, entered into a convention with General Sherman, of the United States' Army, for the surrender, on certain conditions, of the Confederate forces; but these terms were repudiated by General Sherman's Government, and the consequence was the unconditional surrender of the Confederate Army. Therefore the operations of war were going on up to that date. There was no limit in point of time in reference to the Alabama claims, and we knew that, after the date mentioned, and after the surrender of the Confederate forces, ships in different parts of the world continued their operations, and it was suggested that they were guilty of piracy. At all events, every claim made in consequence of their acts might be put forward under this Treaty without limit. It seemed to him strange and unfair that British subjects should be limited to a date which was short of the conclusion of the war, and that, on the other hand, there should be no limit to the claims against us in respect of the Alabama. Under these circumstances, he should be glad to know how the limitation in the Treaty arose.
EARL GRANVILLEsaid, that the dates mentioned by the noble and learned Lord were fixed upon by his noble Friend (Earl De Grey and Ripon) and his brother Commissioners, and were approved by Her Majesty's Government, for these reasons. The Commissioners took the beginning of the war from the commencement of the bombardment of Fort Sumter, and the conclusion of the war from the surrender of General Lee, which put an end to the Confederate Government, and which was considered the final act of the war. If the persons referred to by the noble and learned Lord, from whom also he had received letters, had their cotton burnt a few days after the date named, they were not debarred from making their claim against the American Government. He could hardly conceive that the American Government would refuse to meet a claim of this kind; indeed, he should think that it would be regarded as much stronger than if it had arisen during the war. With regard to these claims

305
generally there was an advantage on our side, for there was no debarring clause whatever with respect to British claims; but American claims were strictly confined to those arising out of the war.
LORD CAIRNSinquired whether any communication would be made to the United States' Government with regard to claims of this character?
EARL DE GREY AND RIPONwas understood to say that these claims, having arisen after the termination of the war, would fall under the ordinary conditions of peace; and as the Commission had decided in favour of such claims which arose during the war, and the United States' Government had agreed to the date taken as that of the termination of the war, he should think that these British subjects would be regarded as having a claim all the stronger because it had arisen after the termination of the war.
House adjourned at a quarter before Right o'clock, to Thursday next, half past Ten o'clock.