Lords Sitting of 22 March 1872

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Bishops Resignation Act (1869) Perpetuation* (61); Ecclesiastical Commissioners Trusts* (63); Naturalization* [64].
Second Reading—Bankruptcy (Ireland) Amendment (51); Debtors (Ireland)* (52).
Second Reading—Committee negatived—Third Reading—(£5,411,099 3s. 3d.) Consolidated Fund*, and passed.
Third Reading—Life Assurance Companies Acts Amendment* (40), and passed.
Withdrawn—Bishops Resignation Continuance* (44).

APPELLATE JURISDICTION—SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL.—OBSERVATIONS.
THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, that in consequence of representations made to him by two of his noble and learned Friends (Lords Chelmsford and Westbury), he would move his Resolution and bring in his Bill on the subject of a Supreme Court of Appeal on Monday, the 15th, instead of Thursday, the 11th of April. He had named the 9th originally, because he was anxious to bring in the Bill as early as possible; but he was anxious also that there should be as full an attendance as possible of noble Lords likely to take part in the discussion; and as he was informed that this object would be better secured by postponing the matter till the 15th, he now begged to give Notice that he would do so.
BILLS RELATING TO IRELAND.

  QUESTION.
  THE MARQUESS OF CLANRICARDEasked what Bills relating to Ireland Her Majesty's Ministers intended to propose to Parliament this Session.
  THE EARL OF DUFFERINsaid, that, in the first place, his noble Friend the Chief Secretary for Ireland had introduced the Grand Jury Amendment (Ireland) Bill, and it was expected that great benefit would result in respect of the transaction of county business from the provisions of that measure. That Bill would render necessary another to deal with certain county officers whose status and position would be affected by the Grand Jury Bill; this Bill would be introduced after Easter. It was also intended to introduce a Local Government Board Bill, for concentrating certain powers of the Lord Lieutenant and Privy Council of Ireland in the hands of a Board of Local Government. Then there would be a measure, which was looked forward to with great anxiety in Ireland, which was rendered necessary by certain misapprehensions as to provisions in the Irish Land Act with respect to loans. He had also hoped to lay upon the Table before Easter a Bill for the general improvement of prisons in Ireland, but the measure would require some further consideration. He hoped, however, to be able to introduce it almost immediately after the Easter Recess. It was the intention of his noble Friend the Chief Secretary for Ireland to introduce a Bill to facilitate the granting of loans for the erection or repair of Labourers' Cottages; and there was a Bill of great importance in contemplation by his noble Friend, but no steps would be taken in respect of its introduction till his noble Friend saw the result of the discussion on the Resolutions affecting Private legislation introduced by the Chairman of Ways and Means in the House of Commons. The Bill to which he referred was one having reference to the subject of local inquiry in the case of Private Bills.

BANKRUPTCY (IRELAND) AMENDMENT BILL—(No. 51.)—(The Lord O'Hagan.)

  SECOND READING.
  Order of the Day for the Second Reading, read.
  LORD O'HAGAN, in moving that the Bill be now read the second time, said, that the measure if not a very ambitious one, was one of great importance, inasmuch as its object was the constitution of a good bankruptcy code for Ireland. In Ireland bankruptcies had been worked since 1857 under an Act passed in that year. It had been carried out efficiently under very able Judges, and had given substantial satisfaction. But the time had arrived when Ireland must necessarily advance in the direction of the changes which had been effected with such good results by English legislation on the subject. The Bill had three objects in view. One was to abolish the distinction now made between traders and non-traders; the second was to abolish the distinction between insolvency and bankruptcy; and the third—which it was proposed to carry into effect by means of the Debtors' Bill which was auxiliary to this—was to abolish imprisonment for debt, and at the same time to make more stringent and effectual the provisions of the law for the punishment of fraudulent debtors. He had endeavoured to adopt everything that experience had shown to be really useful in English legislation, but to reject certain portions that would be impolitic and injurious for Ireland. He had retained, therefore, those provisions of the Irish Act which by experience had been found practically operative for the protection of the honest trader and the punishment of the fraudulent debtor, and at the same time he had taken from the English Acts those provisions which had been found to work successfully in this country, and which might be applied to Ireland without incurring enormous expenditure by bringing into operation agencies much too large for the business to be done in Ireland. The Act of 1857 provided for the regulation of bankruptcy, the regulation of the Insolvent Court, and contained arrangement clauses whereby bankruptcy could be avoided. In this Bill the law with reference to traders and non-traders in England and Ireland would be assimilated. The provisions of the English law for obtaining a certificate or an order of discharge would be applied to Ireland. No such certificate would be granted unless the estate of the bankrupt should have paid 10 s. in the pound, or unless in the opinion of the Court the

  485
  Bankruptcy had arisen from circumstances for which the bankrupt was not justly responsible, and the Court was empowered to suspend or altogether withhold the certificate in the following cases:—where a prosecution had been commenced against the bankrupt for fraudulent dealing, and where the Court were of opinion that he had not made a full disclosure of his affairs. This certificate would release the bankrupt from all debts except those which he might have incurred by fraud or breach of trust, or debts due to the Crown. As to the arrangement clauses, they continued them in full operation and effect, because they had been found of the greatest possible advantage in Ireland. There was another part of the Bill which defined the general powers of its Court. It gave complete and efficient action to the Court in all matters falling within its jurisdiction. It was not subject to restraint in the execution of its powers by any other Court; and if any question of fact arose, instead of having to send it for trial to some other Court, the Court of Bankruptcy was empowered to try the issue with or without a jury in the same manner as if it were the trial of an issue in one of the superior Courts of Common Law. It appeared to them that the measure was one worthy of the favourable consideration of their Lordships, because it was one that he believed would be of the greatest possible advantage to the mercantile community in Ireland. As a supplement to this Bill there was also another one for the abolition of imprisonment for debt in Ireland—a system which had been for the last three or four years in operation in Ireland. They provided also for the mode in which a debtor might make himself a bankrupt, and be discharged from his debts. The opinion of the mercantile community and the general opinion of the country had pronounced in favour of these changes being for the public advantage.
  Motion agreed to; Bill read 2a accordingly, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday the 11 th of April next.
  Then DEBTORS' (IRELAND) BILL read 2a (according to Order), and committed to a Committee of the Whole House on Thursday the 11 th of April next.

EDUCATION—SCHOOL BOARDS.

  QUESTION.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYasked the Lord President, Whether the Vice President of the Council is rightly represented to have expressed an intention to bring in a Bill next year to set up School Boards in every parish in England? That seemed to mean in effect that the Government were ready for compulsory education next year, and that in order to carry it out they intended to set up a universal system of school boards. This was a matter which had created considerable anxiety. It was true that Mr. Forster did not use these precise words; but he said he was "prepared to consider" the point—which was the Ministerial equivalent for saying they would probably do so. It was not, however, easy to understand from what Mr. Forster was reported to have said, whether he spoke his own individual opinion only, or that of the Cabinet. It was very desirable that it should be known whether he spoke on behalf of the Cabinet or not. The matter was one of considerable gravity, because when the Education Act was passed Churchmen accepted the Act as a compromise. It contained many things that they did not like, and it was accepted because it gave them the choice of being, by the liberality of their own Church, able to escape from the nuisance of these school boards. He gathered from the observations of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Forster) that he imagined that the sole object of Churchmen had reference to the application of the system of school boards and rates throughout rural parishes, and that a school board without a rate would be looked upon as a harmless institution. He (the Marquess of Salisbury) did not agree that this was the case. Throughout the rural districts there was a general desire to escape from those school boards, and the reason was obvious. In a small community, where everyone was known to everyone else, the elections for these boards would have the effect of bringing into discussion topics which all who wished well to the country and to the spread of civilizing influences would wish to see kept in abeyance. A school-board election would light a firebrand in most parishes, and tend to drive still further asunder Church-

  487
  men and Dissenters. It would excite a religious antagonism which all who felt a real interest in the peace and happiness of the country would earnestly deprecate and deplore. Nor did he think matters would be improved, if it were announced that the object with which school boards were introduced into every parish was the establishment of compulsory education. He would not discuss the latter question on the present occasion; but he thought there were three classes who would object to it—the poor people for whom it was intended, the farmers who would have to pay for it, and the gentry who would have to administer it. If Mr. Forster was in favour of setting up school boards in every parish, he hoped to hear from his noble Friend, that the intentions of his right hon. Colleague were confined to himself and not shared in by the other Members of the Government.
  THE MARQUESS OF RIPONbelieved that what his right hon. Friend (Mr. Forster said, on the occasion referred to was that—
  "Speaking for myself personally, I shall be ready for a general compulsory measure next year; and that while I do not think that it is desirable to establish school boards for the purpose of providing schools where sufficient and suitable school accommodation is already provided without a rate, I also think that, in considering how to enforce a general compulsory measure, we shall have to consider the question of the general establishment of school boards."—[See 3 Hansard, ccix. 1429–30.]
  When his noble Friend asserted that when used by a Minister the words "to consider" had the same meaning as "to adopt," he must entirely dissent from his noble Friend. He had always understood that when a Minister said he would "consider" an application, that form of expression barred the supposition that he made a promise to comply with what was asked. If his impression were wrong, he was afraid he would be liable to very heavy damages by reason of the many claims which he had promised to consider, but which having considered he had felt unable to recognize. He could assure his noble Friend that his right hon. Friend the Vice President had not committed himself to a general establishment of school boards. At present about 100 boards had sent in by-laws to enforce compulsory attendance, which had received the sanction of the Queen in Council. By next year his right hon.
  488
  Friend and the other Members of the Government would have had considerable experience of school boards, and it would be their bounden duty to consider whether the system of education could remain what it was now—a partially compulsory system—or whether it should be made wholly compulsory; and when they came to consider that question they would have to consider also, whether if the system were made compulsory it should be carried out by school boards throughout the country, or by some other means. But Her Majesty's Government were not in any way pledged to the general establishment of school boards.

TREATY OF WASHINGTON.
TRIBUNAL OF ARBITRATION (GENEVA).
THE INDIRECT CLAIMS.—QUESTION.
THE EARL OF DERBY: My Lords, I rise to put the Question of which I gave Notice on Tuesday last, as to the present state of negotiations between this country and the United States, and as to the course which her Majesty's Government propose to adopt with reference to proceedings under the Treaty of Washington. I have purposely worded my Question in general terms, because I do not wish, on the one hand, to press for information on any special point as to which Her Majesty's Government may not feel justified in giving it; and, on the other hand, because I think it probable that the Foreign Secretary may not object to take this opportunity of making an explanation on the whole matter; and in that case it is better that he should do so in his own way. I am aware of the natural dislike—and under ordinary circumstances it is a very reasonable dislike—which every Minister feels to Parliamentary discussion or inquiry in reference to matters on which negotiations are pending. There may be cases in which such inquiry is not only inopportune, but mischievous; if, in the crisis of a negotiation, you censure the language which your Representative holds, or the principles which he is understood to have laid down, you do to a certain extent weaken his hands, and diminish his chance of arriving at a satisfactory settlement. That is a risk which must sometimes be run, but it is a risk nevertheless. But there is another side to the question. An English Minister directing foreign affairs is placed by the Constitution of the

489
country in a very peculiar position. Public opinion, if unfavourable, can displace him; but although it can displace him, it cannot undo his work. A treaty is a treaty, and it binds the State, even though the public may have known nothing of its provisions until it was concluded, and may have disapproved them as soon as they were known. In America there is a check on that power, because, as we all know, the consent of the Senate is requisite to make a treaty valid. We have no such check—I am not now going into the question whether we ought to have one or not—and therefore, if the rule that no Parliamentary opinion should be expressed on pending negotiations were to be held universally binding, we should find ourselves in this position—that no voice either of encouragement or of warning could be uttered in reference to foreign questions—those questions being in their consequences the most important of any—until the encouragement had become superfluous, or until the warning was of no avail. It may be said—"Even if there is no Parliamentary discussion, you have the Press." Yes, but then we are landed in a conclusion which is practically absurd—that a subject may be freely discussed in every newspaper—that is, discussed by eminently able, but wholly irresponsible writers—while it may not be touched upon by public men in either House, speaking under the gravest sense of their personal responsibility for what they say. Further, it would be a mistake to suppose that criticism necessarily implies a hostile intention. No Minister can be so strong as not to gain by the expressed approval of the Legislature-no Cabinet can be so farsighted as not occasionally to benefit by the suggestion of lookers-on. I am quite sure that every Minister for Foreign Affairs has felt—what, during my limited experience of that office, was often my feeling—that it is a difficult position, and in some respects a false position, to be compelled to guess beforehand what public opinion will or will not sanction—knowing that you pledge the country by what you say or do, and yet being unable to consult beforehand those whom you are in that way pledging to a certain course of action. In one word, what I contend for is this—that while the details of a negotiation are wisely and necessarily left in the hands of the Government who are
490
conducting it, the general principles on which that negotiation is or ought to be based are a fair subject of Parliamentary criticism, at the time when alone such criticism can have any practical result. Everybody allows for the reticence and reserve of a Minister under such circumstances; but it is not necessary, and in my mind it is not desirable, that these qualities should be shown in an equal degree by those who, though no doubt gravely responsible for what they say, are yet not in a precisely similar position. There is a responsibility for silence as well as for speech, and sometimes it is not the lighter of the two. My Lords, the preface which I have made is, perhaps, disproportionate to what is to follow, for it is not now my purpose to go into retrospective remarks on the provisions of the Treaty concluded last year; that matter was discussed in this House—too late, indeed, to remedy what we objected to, but not without utility, if those who remember, or who look back to what then passed, are thereby in some degree reconciled to the possible failure of that Treaty to come into operation. I have stated before, and will not repeat the objection which I felt to the sending out of that mission. The weakness of their position was this—that a mission so sent out, with such unusual pomp and ceremony, was bound under the penalty of making itself ridiculous to conclude a treaty of some sort. It could not come back re infectâ; and obviously, when the other party to the negotiation is aware of that fact, you are not likely to make an advantageous bargain. So we have gone on from concession to concession, till at last we are landed in the present difficulty. But that is a thing of the past. What I now ask from Her Majesty's Government is an assurance—leaving it to them to answer my Question in more or less general terms, as they may think fit—that they will at least steadily maintain the ground which at the beginning of the Session they were understood to take up—the ground, that is, of a refusal to admit the inclusion in the arbitration of those Indirect Claims in any form. This is not a question of detail, it is a question of principle, and it is one on which, now that we are breaking up for some time, Parliament and the public are entitled to have a clear understanding. I will speak quite frankly. I

491
am not afraid of any intentional or direct abandonment on the part of the Cabinet of the position which they have assumed. But I do fear that process, which the late Lord Clarendon, in the time of the Crimean War, described as "drifting;" and I know how often and how easily it happens that, at the end of a long negotiation, the parties concerned in it find themselves in positions which, when it began, they did not at all contemplate taking up. In financial matters, where individuals are concerned, one of the commonest causes of ruin is where a speculator who has been unsuccessful cannot make up his mind to sacrifice a bad investment, but goes on risking more and more in the hope of recovering what he has risked already. I hope nothing analogous ever happens in diplomacy, but we all know and feel the force of the plea—"When we are so nearly agreed, is it not a pity to break off on account of a little concession more?" And so a little is added to a little, until the aggregate comes to a great deal. I would ask further, as the limit of time allowed for putting in the Counter Cases expires on the 15th of next month, whether Her Majesty's Government intend, while these communications are passing between the two Governments, to put in their Counter Case, or to suspend all proceedings before the Arbitrators until the present misunderstanding is cleared up. That is a matter on which a good deal of public interest is felt; and if the course to be taken is decided upon, I presume there can be no objection to state it, inasmuch as before the 15th it must be settled one way or the other, and the result made known. I am aware that there is vested in the Arbitrators a power to extend the time; but that power is conditional on the delay being required for the production of evidence, and that condition obviously does not apply to the present circumstances. If the Counter Case is to be put in, I would further ask whether care has been taken, in so putting it in, to guard against even the appearance of an admission that the Claims set forth in the American Case are covered by the Treaty? That is an essential point, and if the noble Earl can satisfy us upon it, I think this discussion will not have been useless.
EARL GRANVILLE: My noble Friend who has just addressed your Lordships (the Earl of Derby) divided his subject
492
into three parts. The Notice of his Question is, as he has himself stated, of a somewhat vague character; and though the noble Earl stated, at the beginning of his speech, that its vagueness was intentional, and had arisen out of consideration for the difficulties of my position, I think that in a matter of this kind it would have been better that the Notice should have been a distinct and definite one of the particular Question or Questions about to be put to a Member of Her Majesty's Government. Now, since the noble Earl gave Notice of his Question, a nearly similar Question has been put in "another place," and the Prime Minister took that opportunity of explaining the views of Her Majesty's Government as far as it was consistent with the public interests that he should do so. The noble Earl spoke at considerable length of the advantages of public discussions of our policy in regard of negotiations going on with foreign Powers. On the other hand, he admitted that there are occasions when it is for the interest of the country that complete publicity should not be given to the course being pursued by the Government, and when discussion might be not only inopportune but mischievous. The noble Earl said that if in the crisis of a negotiation you censure the language your Representative holds, or the principles which he is understood to have laid down, such a course is mischievous; but I go further, and say that there are cases where manifestly it is for the interest of the country that no indication should be given at any particular stage of the negotiation of the steps which it is proposed to take in the subsequent negotiations. I can say for myself and my Colleagues—I can say for the noble Marquess behind me (the Marquess of Ripon)—that we most earnestly desire to discuss this question in the fullest and most complete manner. We desire this not only because we are anxious to clear ourselves of that blame, so much of which has been cast upon us, and which I think we have not merited, but also because we are of opinion that it would be a great advantage to this country that we should be able to discuss this question in such a way as to show that we were not guilty of that negligence by which it is alleged in certain quarters that some advantages were given to the Government at the other side of the At-

493
lantic. But I believe it is not for the public interest that we should go into a discussion of this sort at the present moment. My Lords, I do not think we have been unusually reticent in respect of this matter. We purposely had the ratification of the Treaty completed at a very early period, in order to give a noble Earl who is not now present (Earl Russell) an opportunity of eliciting the opinion of this House; and this year we took the first opportunity of announcing the policy of the Government with reference to the Claims, when we put into the mouth of Her Majesty words of no little significance. Therefore, my Lords, while I say it is natural that the noble Earl should ask a Question on this subject, we have a right, in reply to that Question, to refer to the Speech from the Throne—for it would be something offensive if, having put words into the mouth of Her Majesty, we did not mean to act in the spirit and policy of those words. My Lords, the noble Earl has spoken of what he said last year on the subject of the Treaty. I think this is hardly the time to go into an elaborate defence of the Treaty of Washington; but I may say that it gave great satisfaction not only here but on the other side of the Atlantic. There was no opposition to it in the House of Commons, when it was brought under the notice of that House by the Prime Minister; and in this House it was received with an utter absence of party spirit, and your Lordships utterly refused to endorse what was put forward against it by my noble Friend, Earl Russell. I must also observe that we are not now dealing with the Treaty generally, but with the particular construction of a particular clause in it. The noble Earl himself entered into an elaborate criticism of the Treaty last year; but so far from hitting this particular point, in the most emphatic terms my noble Friend said the only concession he could find in the Treaty, on the part of the Americans, was the abandonment of the extravagant notion of our being liable for an early recognition of belligerency, and of the equally preposterous imagination, which he believed only existed in the minds of one or two speakers in the Senate, of constructive damage arising from the continuance of the war. My noble Friend applied all his powers to that criticism, and yet he entirely concurred in the doc-
494
trine we now hold, as to the exclusion of those claims from the terms of the Treaty. I do not, however, wish to pursue the question of the construction of the Treaty—I wish to give what answer I can to the Question of the noble Earl, and I can only repeat what has been emphatically stated in "another place"—that we are anxious to maintain the Treaty. The noble Earl made a comparison which I do not see the force of. He said, in effect—"Don't throw good money after the bad money you have lost." But here is a solemn engagement between two great countries, who both were desirous of entering into a settlement on a question of international law. They have a misunderstanding on one point; and while, on the one hand, we should be to blame if we departed from the position we have taken up, on the other hand, we should be deserving of censure, if by any hasty steps we threw away an opportunity of maintaining the Treaty as we think it ought to be maintained. We are determined to adhere to the policy announced by Her Majesty's Ministers in Her Majesty's Speech. I may say one thing—and I hope I may say it without any undue laudation—namely, that although since the formation of Mr. Gladstone's Ministry several difficult questions of policy have arisen, and though in dealing with them we have been blamed by some and praised by others, according to their political views, I am not aware that in any one case we have departed from the policy we once adopted, or have departed or receded from words we deliberately used. I believe that to be so, my Lords; and, in the same spirit, I say that we shall not depart from the policy announced in the Speech from the Throne—and, if I may be permitted to say so, repeated in words spoken by myself on the first night of the Session. With regard to the particular Question with which the noble Earl concluded, I am not in a position to answer it; but if I were I should decline to do so, because if you once begin to answer Questions of that kind, it is impossible not to drift into explanations which would be unadvisable to the public interests. I am quite aware of the anxiety existing on this subject in the minds of the people of England, and in the minds of the people of the United States also; but though I am not astonished that my noble Friend should

495
have put his Question, I trust the House will not think I am maintaining an undue reserve if, while I should cheerfully and cordially welcome a fitting opportunity for discussing this subject, I cannot at this moment depart from the general terms in which I have replied to my noble Friend's inquiry, and to the remarks which he has addressed to your Lordships.
THE EARL OF MALMESBURY: My Lords, I think the question raised in this discussion is one of great importance. It is whether great reticence on foreign affairs should be maintained in this House. Formerly diplomacy was carried on in great secresy, and Papers were not laid upon the Table till all the negotiations were concluded. But now a different state of things exists. Since the House of Commons has been reformed—since the custom was established of producing Papers, even in the progress of the negotiations, and since the people have become more intelligent in respect to questions of foreign policy, it is impossible to maintain the old system, for it would not be borne by the country. Under the pressure of Parliamentary Government the Minister is obliged to produce important Papers for the perusal of your Lordships, and your Lordships having read them, is it to be supposed that you are to maintain a complete silence with respect to the negotiations to which they relate? That can scarcely be asserted. It becomes, then, a matter of discretion—discretion on the part of any noble Lord who is disposed to ask a Question, and discretion on the part of the Government as to whether they will answer a Question if it is put. Having said so much on that point, I must make a remark as to what my noble Friend the Secretary for Foreign Affairs said just now, when he observed that the whole country had been satisfied with the Treaty. Now, my Lords, that satisfaction must be taken with a qualification. The country was satisfied with the Treaty so far as the country understood it. The belief throughout the kingdom was that it had been brought about with the best intentions, and that my noble Friend (the Marquess of Ripon) had succeeded in coming to a complete agreement with the American negotiators, and in rendering our future relations with the United States satisfactory and secure. To that
496
extent the country sanctioned the Treaty. But my noble Friend (the Earl of Derby) said he was not satisfied with our new position. He maintained that our previous position had been impregnable, because we had proposed arbitration, which had been refused, and it was for the Americans to take the next step; he foresaw difficulties, and was of opinion that very little had been obtained by us through the Treaty, except the putting an end to a long discussion on the Alabama Claims. The country gave its adherence to the Treaty, because it did not foresee that it would be ambiguous. The country was as much deceived as Her Majesty's Government was deceived with regard to the Treaty. However opinions might differ as to details, the country and Parliament thought the result had been a prosperous one, and had answered their expectations. But what is the case now? All at once we are told that such a misunderstanding as to the meaning of the Treaty exists that it may be said to be not worth sixpence. Many men in and out of this House wish it, therefore, to be at once abrogated, for fear of going further and deeper into difficulty. Instead of the country being satisfied with the Treaty, I believe there is scarcely a man who will regret it if the Government stand firm—as I am sure, after my noble Friend's speech, they will—and if the Treaty is abrogated, or allowed to fall to the ground. There is nothing, indeed, to be regretted in it. The object of the Treaty was the smoothing down differences between the two countries, and that has failed; for these differences have rather increased the disagreeable feeling in America—so that the object which the Government had at heart, excellent as it was, has failed. I do not say it is my noble Friend's fault, but when he tells us public discussions on these matters are often dangerous, and to be deprecated, let him remember that the greatest advantage which he holds against the Americans proceeds from one of the very discussions to which he has alluded. But for that discussion, the American Minister, sitting in the Gallery, would not have heard the speech in which my noble Friend distinctly boasted that Indirect Claims had been got rid of. That is one of the strongest arguments he can employ against the American Government. As to his re-

497
mark that the interpretation of the Treaty appeared at the time in this country perfectly plain, I would remind him that my noble and learned Friend not now present (Lord Cairns), in a manner quite prophetic, told the House that an interpretation could be put upon this clause, and that indirect claims were not barred so strongly and indisputably as they should have been. One thing which the country is anxious to know is, how the Government explain the difficulty which has arisen. Will they tell the House how they convinced themselves so completely that no indirect claims were asked for—especially in the light of the 36th Protocol? In the 36th Protocol the American Government distinctly enumerated every indirect claim that could be imagined, and rested upon them as strongly as any Government could insist. They claimed for indirect injury, for the addition of a large sum to the cost of the war and the suppression of the rebellion, and for the cruisers which they had to employ to capture privateers. What was the answer of the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Ripon), the chief British Commissioner? I presume the reply was his, though the Protocol gives it as that of the Commissioners—and it was in these terms—
"They would abstain from replying in detail to the statement of the American Commissioners, in the hope the necessity of entering upon a controversy would be avoided."
The noble Marquess was quite right in hoping that arbitration would be adopted, and that a mode of settlement would be agreed on; but I think an older and more practised diplomatist would not have simply postponed the question. He would have said—"Before we go any further there must be an understanding that indirect claims are barred—we have nothing whatever to do with them. Though we are ready to offer arbitration, it must be understood that indirect claims are to be barred." The noble Marquess, however, put aside the question, and I find nowhere else any distinct allusion to it, or any statement that those claims were barred. If, therefore, I am asked my opinion of the origin of the misunderstanding, it is the mistake which the noble Marquess then and there made in not having the courage to say "No." I shall have no anxiety in seeing the Treaty abandoned, for
498
when an error of that kind has been made it is better to do what schoolboys do when they cannot get their sums right—sponge off the slate and begin again. If my noble Friend wishes for any advice, I will remind him of the words of the American Commissioners upon an analogous point during these negotiations. On the question of the North-west Boundary being discussed, they replied—
"That, in view of the position taken by the British Commissioners, it appeared that the Treaty of June 15, 1846, might have been made under a mutual misunderstanding, and would not have been made had each party understood at that time the construction which the other party puts upon the language whose interpretation is in dispute; they therefore proposed to abrogate the whole of that part of the Treaty, and re-arrange the boundary line which was in dispute before that Treaty was concluded."
Those words are worthy, I think, of the attention of Her Majesty's Government.
LORD WESTBURY: My Lords, though unwilling to intrude into this discussion, I think it necessary to say a few words, in order to prevent the possibility of what I should deem a grievous mistake on the part of Her Majesty's Government. We were told some time ago—and, I think, truly—that the conduct of the United States' Government thoughout the negotiation of this Treaty was such as to give us an assured belief that the Indirect Claims had been abandoned, and were not intended to be included in the Reference. Undoubtedly that assurance, conveyed either in words or by the whole tenour of the communication, is the best justification for the ambiguous language of the Treaty. It lulled to sleep the vigilance of our Commissioners. But what will the United States do? They now contend that on the construction of the Treaty these Claims come within its terms. What is that pregnant with an admission of? Why, an admission that they were conscious the Treaty was framed so as to include claims which by word and deed they had persuaded us were not to be included. Unfortunately, the Prime Minister contends that the construction of the Treaty is with us, and that if it were fairly construed these claims would not be included. Now, that species of argument is playing the very game of the Americans, and they fasten upon it with a degree of acuteness for which they are proverbial, but which, unhappily, in this "used-up old

499
country" is not so prevalent. They argue—"You say the construction is with you, and we say it is with us; therefore an issue is raised upon the language of the Treaty which must of necessity go to the Arbitrators, who are the proper tribunal to determine such a question." Now, I do not argue the construction of the Treaty. Enough for me that it is ambiguous, and that it may admit of an interpretation which is contrary to the truth and honour of it. What I beg the Government to do is to take a firm stand upon the truth of what was understood on both sides at the time, and not to be beguiled into a question concerning the construction of a treaty; for it is idle to discuss the construction of a document which you contend does not contain your real sentiments, and does not tally with the belief and understanding which you were induced by the other side to entertain. Insist that no question as to the construction of the Treaty on this matter shall go to the Arbitrators; for there is something superior to language—good faith—the question what was intended by us, and what was represented to us to be intended by them. Have that point raised and decided before you begin quibbling as to the interpretation of the language. The only thing we can possibly do is not to seek to exact from Her Majesty's Government any disclosure of matters which it may be inconvenient to reveal, but to point out that they must pursue one course, and must not attempt to reconcile inconsistent courses. If you say you never intended these claims to be within the Treaty, it is an idle thing to insist that they are not within the Treaty. In conclusion, I have only to express my earnest hope that the course which Her Majesty's Government take may be in all respects consistent with that which the truth, the honour, and I will add, the courage of the country demand; and it was with that hope only, and with a desire of pointing out the inconsistency of attempting to do two irreconcilable things at once, that I have taken the liberty of intruding upon the attention of the House with reference to this matter.
THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I certainly am not about to commit the indiscretion of departing for a moment from the line of duty which was so clearly expressed by the noble Earl the
500
Secretary for Foreign Affairs; but I cannot allow the observations which just been made by the noble and learned Lord (Lord Westbury) to pass without that answer which they demand. The noble and learned Lord says there is an inconsistency in saying that we intended at all times that the Treaty should bear a certain sense, and at the same time saying that we contend that it does bear that sense. I cannot for the life of me see any inconsistency between those two propositions. On the contrary, I should say that nothing could be more disgraceful and discreditable to us than to say—"True it is that we cannot contend that the Treaty means what we say it does; but, nevertheless, without a shadow of argument to back us, we are prepared to contend that it means that which we know it does not mean." Surely such a course would be an inconsistency, and a gross inconsistency. On the other hand, there is nothing inconsistent in our saying—"We have not agreed to attribute to the Treaty such and such a meaning; we never had any intention of attributing to it such a meaning; but, at the same time, for the sake of our honour and consistency we do record in a formal Note what we said in the hearing of the American Minister in this House, and what we have maintained at all times since its execution—namely, that the Treaty itself, on the face of it, does not bear the construction you seek to put upon it." I maintain that to adopt such a course is not only consistent in itself, but that it is consistent with the honour of this country, which we trust will be safe in our hands.
EARL GREY: The noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack appears to have totally misunderstood the observations of the noble and learned Lord opposite (Lord Westbury). What I understood the latter to say—and I think that his remark is quite true—was, that there would be a great inconsistency in going into an argument as to whether the Treaty will or will not bear a certain interpretation, while, at the same time, we are taking up a position that, whatever may be the language of the instrument, we did not intend that it should bear that interpretation, and entirely disclaim being bound by it. What is material to the question is, that we meant a certain thing by the Treaty,

501
and from that construction we will not depart.
THE EARL OF LAUDERDALEsaid, he could not agree with the statement of the noble Earl the Secretary for Foreign Affairs, that the Washington Treaty was generally accepted by the country last year; he denied that it had been generally accepted by their Lordships' House. No doubt a certain portion of the country, the public Press, and the other House had approved it, and he wished them joy of their bargain, But the country and the other House of Parliament had accepted the Treaty on the faith of the assurance by the noble Earl and of the Prime Minister that the Indirect Claims were excluded from consideration under it. Since that time, however, the Prime Minister had informed the other House that we were to be held liable for all the expenses of that part of the American navy which was employed in looking after the Southern cruisers. He confessed that on looking at the words of the Treaty he thought that the construction put upon it by the United States was justifiable. It appeared to him to be no Treaty at all, for it was understood in one way in this country, and in another way in the United States; and, therefore, the instrument not having expressed our real meaning, the sooner the Treaty came to an end the better.

COURTS OF QUARTER SESSION (IRELAND).—QUESTION.

  MOTION FOR RETURNS.
  LORD WESTBURYrose to call the attention of the House to the state of business on the Civil Bill side of the Courts of Quarter Session in Ireland, and to the defects in the jurisdiction of such Courts, and to ask a Question. The noble and learned Lord said, that in directing attention to this subject, it was necessary to bear in mind the differences between the County Courts in England and the Courts of Quarter Session in Ireland, and that to these tribunals in each country important duties were attached in connection with the administration of justice. In England the County Courts had attained great importance; as would appear from the fact that while in 1870 the total amount recovered in our Common Law Courts was £370,000, the amount recovered in the County Courts
  502
  was £1,321,000. The Courts of Quarter Session in Ireland were of equal importance; for though the amount recovered in them in civil causes might not be so large, nevertheless their business was of the most diversified character. Last year they decided on twice as many offences as the higher criminal Courts in that country, issued 30 times as many ejectments, gave judgment in cases involving four times as much as the verdicts in the Common Law Courts amounted to, heard 500 appeals from magistrates, and disposed of 3,000 applications for licences, in addition to a large number of cases under the Irish Land Act. The County Courts in England were established in 1847, but they possessed at that time merely common law jurisdiction in cases involving sums under £50. Since their institution many additions of jurisdiction had been advantageously conferred on them. During his own tenure of office as Lord Chancellor, they received equitable jurisdiction—whereby they were enabled to make decrees relative to the administration of a deceased person's estate when it did not exceed £500, to entertain questions arising out of partnerships, also suits for specific performance, applications for injunctions, and various other matters. All those powers, however, were wanting to the Chairmen of Quarter Sessions in Ireland; and he was assured that frequent and signal failures of justice occurred in that country by reason of the persons resorting to those Courts finding that they had not authority to dispose of the questions involved in their cases. The necessity for an alteration was imperative. Take the case of a tenant-farmer who died intestate, leaving an estate of some £300 or £400; if he died childless a contest almost always ensued between the widow and her friends and the relatives of the husband; and even when there were children it was found that one member of the family usually took possession of the property and doled out to the other members such small sums as he thought proper. For that there was no possibility of redress in Ireland, unless the aggrieved party resorted to the Court of Chancery, where a small estate would probably be swallowed up. Again, it continually happened when a man was suing another for a debt, that it turned out in the course of the action that there

  503
  was some kind of partnership between them. Then, unfortunately, the Chairman of Quarter Sessions was obliged to tell the parties that he had no jurisdiction, and that they must both quit the Court without obtaining relief. The litigants went away complaining of the difference between English and Irish justice, and of the neglect of the Imperial Parliament in not giving them the same remedy as was extended to Englishmen. All that arose from the want of a most beneficial jurisdiction. In an address delivered in November, 1870, by the Lord Chancellor of Ireland, that noble and learned Lord said that the County Court was created for the benefit of the comparatively poor; and yet in very many cases in which it was impossible for such people to invoke the jurisdiction of the Court of Chancery, their access to the Civil Bill Side Judge was wholly useless, for he had no authority to entertain their claims, and the relief which the rich man could compel under precisely the same circumstances, was denied to those to whom it was equally due and might be more important. The noble and learned Lord added that that was an evil which pressingly needed redress, and that its removal would prevent the practical denial of justice in a multitude of cases, and confer a real benefit on the humbler classes of Ireland. Now, he (Lord Westbury) hoped to see the day when his noble and learned Friend would be enabled to confer on Ireland the great benefit the Lord Chancellor of Ireland had described; but he was afraid that, in proceeding with the work, he would be encountered by what might be called the evil genius of the present Government—the demon of parsimonious economy which prevented them from doing the great things they meditated, but had not the heart to achieve. In Ireland there were 33 districts, having 33 Chairmen, who were not only subject to most injurious disabilities, but received very small salaries, being in return allowed the very questionable privilege of carrying on private practice. If the changes he (Lord Westbury) advocated were effected, and the jurisdiction of these Courts extended, he believed that large additions would be made to the Revenue in the shape of augmented stamp duties and fees; for in Ireland, under the present state of things, a very small amount
  504
  of probate duty was paid, and in cases of intestacy few persons took out letters of administration. The noble and learned Lord then asked the Lord Chancellor of Ireland, If it is the intention of the Government to introduce a Bill during the present session for extending to such Courts the equitable and other jurisdiction and powers vested in the county court judges in England, but not possessed by the judges of the Civil Bill courts in Ireland, so as to make the aforesaid courts in Ireland co-equal in point of jurisdiction and authority with the county courts in England?
  LORD O'HAGANsaid, he cordially agreed in the substantial part of the noble and learned Lord's complaint; for it was in substance very much the complaint he had himself made on the occasion when, as President of the Statistical Society of Ireland, he delivered the address quoted by the noble and learned Lord. He agreed as to the improvement of these Courts as the poor man's Courts, and as to the advantage of assimilating the law of Ireland to the law of England and the law of England to the law of Ireland, when by such a process any advantage could be gained by the one side or the other. But what was good for one was not always good for the other, and it was not possible to make a rigid rule in all cases, and perhaps not in the case now under consideration. Strange as it might appear, with regard to many of their legal institutions in Ireland they had outrun the civilization of England. The County Court system was instituted in Ireland in the last century, and became the model for the County Court system in England, which was not established until 1840. The same might be said as to registration fees and the question of a public prosecutor. This system of County Courts in Ireland was, he thought, very creditable to the country, and upon the whole it had been satisfactory. Originally the jurisdiction was small, but it was extended according to the exigencies and the circumstances of the people, and ultimately it became a very important tribunal for administration of justice. He did not believe that the English County Court system, good as it was in many respects, had been so entirely satisfactory as to make it one to be followed as a model to the extent suggested. At the same time he admitted that the sys-

  505
  tem in Ireland should be extended for the reasons and much to the degree mentioned by the noble and learned Lord. He withheld, however, at present any opinion as to an organic change of the system:—and he would say nothing with regard to the county officers. That was a subject connected with the Grand Jury system, and would be properly dealt with by a separate measure. In the other House a promise had been given that such a measure should be introduced either this or next Session. If that were done, it appeared to him that a simple arrangement, amalgamating the officer representing the Crown at the assizes with the clerk of the peace, would provide an officer who might do duty very well at the Quarter Session Court and the Civil Bill Court without one penny of additional cost to the country. But, so far as the matters referred to by his noble and learned Friend were concerned, he was clearly of opinion that there ought to be an extension of the jurisdiction of the County Court Judges in Ireland. He had no doubt whatever that it was necessary for the good of the people of Ireland that they should have an equitable jurisdiction—at all events to a considerable extent. That was becoming more necessary every day, because Ireland was materially progressing. The people had a great deal of money in their hands, and there was no doubt that the operation of the Land Act had not only led already to a larger expenditure upon the soil of Ireland in the way of improvement than any other measure ever invented by the Imperial Parliament, but it had induced the people to enter into contracts one with another as to land, which it was of the greatest importance there should be power to enforce at small expense and in a facile way. When a man purchased a small piece of land, say worth £100 or £200, or obtained the promise of a lease worth £20 a-year, and the person with whom he had contracted would not carry it out, he had no alternative but to go before one of the Judges of the Court of Chancery at an expense which it was totally beyond his power to incur. It was clear that there should be equitable jurisdiction in such cases; and also in cases of commercial relations, because there were often partnerships involving accounts of a complicated character. There should also be an extension of jurisdiction in
  506
  the Civil Bill Court. At present, even when grievous injury was done to a poor man, he was frequently left without remedy unless he could gather money to go into a Superior Court. As the result justice was denied to the poor man. For instance, if a man went to the Civil Bill Court to complain of an obstruction of a right of way, he was told to go to the Superior Court or he could not have redress. In consequence of justice according to law being thus denied the justice of the strong hand was sometimes appealed to, leading to breaches of law and order. That being his opinion, he could not express it too strongly. Although unable to answer the Question of the noble and learned Lord (Lord Westbury) he might say that he had done his best towards carrying out all those views and principles he had alluded to. For a considerable time he had been in communication with Chairmen of Quarter Session in Ireland with the object of initiating a reform in this respect; and a Bill which had been prepared touching these questions was at present under the consideration of the Government. It would be a cause of great satisfaction to him if the views he had expressed could be carried out. He believed it was necessary that these things should be done, and that the people of Ireland would be very grateful if they were done for them.

CLERKS OF THE PEACE (IRELAND.)

  ADDRESS FOR A RETURN.
  LORD WESTBURYthen moved an Address to the Crown for—
  "Return of the number and names of the clerks of the peace of the several counties, cities, and towns in Ireland who are ex officio registrars of the courts of quarter session, and their residences, and which of them perform their duties in person and which by deputy, and the amount of the salary and other emoluments received by each cleric during the year 1871, and which of such clerks and deputies respectively are attornies."
  Motion agreed to.

  BISHOPS RESIGNATION CONTINUANCE BILL [H.L.]
  The Order made yesterday for the House to be put into Committee on the 15th of April next, discharged; and Bill (by leave of the House) withdrawn.
  BISHOPS RESIGNATION ACT (1869) PERPETUATION BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill for making perpetual the Bishops Resignation Act, 1869—Was presented by The Lord Archbishop of CANTERBURY; read 1a. (No. 61.)
  ECCLESIASTICAL COMMISSIONERS TRUSTS BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill to enable the Ecclesiastical Commissioners for England to accept Trusts, and to apply a sum of £800 yearly out of the profits of the prebendal stall of Cantelowes in the cathedral church of Saint Paul—Was presented by The Marquess of SALISBURY; read 1a. (No. 63.)

  NATURALIZATION BILL [H.L.]
  A Bill for amending the law in certain cases in relation to Naturalization—Was presented by The LORD CHANCELLOR; read 1a. (No. 64.)
  House adjourned at a quarter past Seven o'clock, to Monday next, a quarter before Four o'clock.