Sitting of 13 May 1864

ARMY—THE ENFIELD RIFLE.

  QUESTION.
  LORD ELCHOsaid, he rose to ask the Under Secretary of State for War, Whether the War Department intend to spend the Money recently voted by Parliament for Small Arms in the continued manufacture of the three-grooved service Enfield Rifle, of which upwards of 100,000 have been made since it was reported by the Ordnance Select Committee, on the 26th November, 1862, as being inferior to the oval-bore Rifle, "1stly, as regards precision when clean; 2ndly, as regards precision when foul; 3rdly, as regards non-tendency to accumulate fouling; and 4thly, as regards simplicity of management;" whether there is any reason to doubt the general correctness of the statement made by the Ordnance Select Committee that the oval-bore Rifle might be adopted into the service "without necessitating any increase to the present cost of supply;" whether it is the case that the oval-bore Rifle has been for many years one of the pattern arms of the service, and is the weapon with which the Engineers of the Regular and Volunteer Forces are now armed; and whether it is the intention of the War Department to institute further competitive trials of large or small-bore, muzzle, or breech-loading Rifles; whether pending the result of such trials, supposing them to he instituted, the manufacture of the three-grooved Enfield Rifle will be continued, and within what period of time it may reasonably be anticipated that a decision will be come to as to the pattern small arm to be adopted into the service for the future use of Her Majesty's Forces?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, in reply, that it was intended to continue the manufacture of the three-grooved service Enfield Rifle until it had been decided by the Secretary of State what weapon was to be employed in the service for the future. He had said last year, as well as the other day, that immediately after the Report of the Committee on Small Arms had been received it had been decided to reduce the manufacture of the Enfield to the lowest possible limit consistent with the supply rendered necessary from the wear and tear of the weapons now in use. From the 1st of April, 1863,

  457
  to the 1st of April, 1864, the manufacture of small arms at Enfield numbered only 54,000, and out of that number not above 40.000 were of the three-grooved long Enfield pattern. The production at the present time was only 1,000 per week of all kinds, and of that number under 700 were of the three-grooved long Enfield pattern. He had stated the other evening, and he had nothing to add to that statement now, that it was not intended to give up the production of the present service rifle until the merits of the Whitworth large-bore rifle had been fully tested. With regard to the second portion of the question asked by the noble Lord, he believed the fact was that the machinery at present employed in the manufacture of small arms could with a small expenditure be adapted to the manufacture of the Lancaster Rifle. To this expenditure, however, would have to be added the cost of the royalty. The Lancaster system of rifling had been used for several years in the carbines supplied to the Engineers. It was not the intention of the War Department at the present moment to institute any further competitive trials of small arms. It was, however, by no means impossible that a special trial between the Whitworth and the Lancaster rifles might not have to be made, but he hoped that no long time would elapse before a final decision could be come to upon the subject.
  COLONEL KNOXsaid, he would beg to ask the noble Lord, Whether it is the intention of the Government to adapt the breech-loading system to the Enfield Rifle?
  THE MARQUESS OF HARTINGTONsaid, that 2,000 breech-loaders had been ordered for trial in different parts of the world, but no experiment would be tried as to the feasibility of adapting the breech-loading system to the service Enfields until reports had been received as to the value of a breech-loading arm as a military weapon.

FRANCE—FISHERIES CONVENTION.

  QUESTION.
  MR. DU CANEsaid, he would beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade, Whether the Commission appointed last year to inquire into the present state of the Oyster Fisheries of this Country has made any Report; and whether it is the intention of this Government to ask the Government of France to agree to an
  458
  International Commission, with a view to alter and amend the Fishery Convention between France and this country?
  MR. MILNER GIBSONsaid, in reply, that the Commission had not yet made any Report, but he hoped it might make its appearance in the course of the present year. With respect to the intention of the Government, he had to say that communications had passed between the French and English Governments upon this subject, and though at present nothing had been settled, the subject was still under consideration, and he believed it would be better to wait until the Report had appeared before the question was considered, whether any amendment in the Convention was desirable?

DENMARK AND GERMANY. PRUSSIAN EXACTIONS IN JUTLAND.

  QUESTION.
  MR. RICHARD LONGsaid, he would beg to ask the First Lord of the Treasury, Whether the Minister for Foreign Affairs will continue to preside at the Conference notwithstanding the exactions and oppressions alleged to have been perpetrated in Jutland by the orders of Marshal Wrangel; and whether Her Majesty's Government have protested, and will protest, against the commission of such outrages on non-combatants during the sittings of the Conference?
  SIR GEORGE GREY: Sir, these exactions and oppressions which are alleged to have been committed in Jutland constitute a strong additional reason for endeavouring to put an end to the war. My noble Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs has not, in consequence of those exactions which are alleged to have taken place, ceased to attend the Conference; and I think the House will be of opinion that he would have acted very unwisely if he had done so, instead of endeavouring, in concert with other neutral Powers—and that successfully—to obtain a suspension of arms, one of the conditions of which is, that the Austrian and Prussian armies are not to levy any contributions on the people of Jutland, but are to pay for everything that is furnished to them.

PENSIONS TO COLONIAL GOVERNORS.

  QUESTION.
  MR. BAILLIE COCHRANEsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Colonies, What decision the Govern-

  459
  meat has come to respecting the granting pensions to Ex-Governors of Colonies?
  MR. CARDWELLsaid, in reply, that the Government had not yet come to any decision on the subject. The answers to the Circular letter which had been sent to the Governors of Colonies had not yet been received.

CUSTOMS GAUGERS.—QUESTION.
MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, he wished to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, When an answer will be given to the Petition of the Gaugers of Her Majesty's Customs, London, praying for redress of grievances?
MR. PEELsaid, in reply, that the Petition of these officers had been received, and had met with the careful consideration of the Treasury. He hoped the answer of the Commissioners would be sent in in the. course of two or three days.

IMPURITIES IN THE THAMES.

  QUESTION.
  MR. CLIFFORDsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether his attention has been called to the large discharge of gas tar refuse into the River Thames; and whether he will set the law in motion to abate a nuisance so prejudicial to the health of the metropolis?
  MR. HUNTsaid, in reply, that the law for preventing the discharge of gas water and other impurities into the Thames, such as it was contained in the Conservancy Act of 1807, had been put in force as far, he believed, as was possible or practicable. The Conservancy Board had been extremely vigilant, and had exerted themselves with vigour and effect. He was informed that the impurities of which his hon. Friend complained did not proceed from premises on the banks of the river, but rather from the creeks and canals to which the powers of the Conservancy Act did not extend. This was a great evil, but there was a Bill then under the consideration of Parliament dealing with this subject, and into that Bill a clause regulating this subject might, he thought, with advantage be introduced.

CHINA—POLICY OF EUROPEAN POWERS.

  QUESTION.
  COLONEL SYKESsaid, he rose to ask the Under Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he will lay upon the table of the House, Copy of a Despatch
  460
  from Sir Frederick Bruce to Earl Russell, respecting the joint policy the Ministers of Russia, France, and America have agreed to pursue in China; and Copy of which he had furnished to Mr. Burlinghame, the American Minister, for communication to the American Government, and to which Mr. Burlinghame refers in his Despatch to Mr. Seward, dated Pekin, 20th June, 1863, and marked A of the enclosures?
  MR. LAYARD, in reply, said, he did not think it advisable to lay this despatch on the table. The House was aware that this document related not only to the policy of this country, but to that of the United States, France, and Russia, and he did not think it would be fair to other Powers to produce it.
  COLONEL SYKESsaid, that after the recess he would call the attention of the House to the subject.

INDIA—DELHI PRIZE MONEY.

  QUESTION.
  SIR MINTO FARQUHARsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for India, When the second instalment of the Delhi Prize Money is likely to be paid in England, it having been paid in India so far back as November last?
  SIR CHARLES WOODreplied that he was sorry that he could not answer the Question. There had, no doubt, been considerable delay, arising from errors which had occurred in the first list. A despatch for the purpose correcting these errors had been sent out to India nearly two months ago.

THE BANK ACT, 1814.—QUESTION.
MR. HUBBARDsaid, in the absence of his hon. Friend (Mr. Heygate), he would beg to ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Whether, taking into account the vast increase of the trade and commerce of England in the last thirty years, he is of opinion that the arrangement of 1844, limiting the Bank of England to an issue of fourteen millions of Bank Notes, without a corresponding amount of gold, is now commensurate with the daily monetary requirements of the country?
THE CHANCELLOE OF THE EXCHEQUER, in reply, said, the Question of the hon. Gentleman hardly admitted of an intelligent answer without a general statement on the subject of the currency. He might, however, refer to what he had stated a few days ago, that in his opinion

461
the essential principle of the Bank Act of 1844 had been proved by experiment to be sound and necessary for the regulation of the monetary affairs of the country. But there was a subsidiary and second provision of the Act with regard to which he thought it would be convenient that the attention of hon. Members might be drawn. "With respect to the particular points alluded to in the Question, all he could say was, that he was a consenting party to the substance of that paragraph of the Report of the Committee of 1858 with regard to the issue of £14,000,000 of bank notes by the Bank of England on securities. There was a popular impression that the effect of an addition to the issue on securities would add to the practical available circulating medium of the country. That view the Committee declared to be entirely erroneous, and in that opinion of the Committee he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) entirely concurred.

LAMBETH—MEDICAL DIPLOMAS.

  QUESTION.
  COLONEL FRENCHsaid, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, If it is the fact that the Archbishop of Canterbury has the power to confer the title of Doctor of Medicine on persons who have not undergone an examination before the College of Physicians?
  SIR GEORGE GREY: Owing, Sir, to the short notice I have had of the Question of the hon. and gallant Member, I have not been able to ascertain all the facts relating to the subject. There is an old statute under which the Archbishop of Canterbury has the power to confer a Doctor's Degree, and I believe that power was recognized by the last Medical Act, but attaching certain qualifications to the person receiving the degree. I am also able to say that the present Archbishop has never exercised the power.
  COLONEL FRENCH: It was exercised in 1858.

CONVICTION OF GIPSIES IN CORN WALL.—EXPLANATION.
SIR GEORGE GREY: Sir, I answered a Question the other evening which was put to me by the hon. Member for North Northamptonshire (Mr. Hunt) relative to the sentence passed upon some gipsies in Cornwall, who were alleged to have been
462
committed for sleeping under a tent. Since then I have written to the committing magistrate, requesting him to furnish me with a report of the case. It turned out as I expected, that they were committed under the Vagrancy Act, and not for merely sleeping under a tent. I have received a letter from the magistrate, which, in justice to him, I desire to read to the House. It is as follows:—
"Lelant Vicarage, May 12.—Having received this morning your letter of the 10th instant, requesting me to furnish you with a full report of the case of the committal of the Gipsies by me, I beg to communicate to you the following particulars:—At Redruth, some few days before the committal, one of them was apprehended by the police for vagrancy, and was discharged on her promising to leave the neighbourhood; instead of doing which she was found the following day at Camborne, only three miles off, telling fortunes. On another day subsequent, a man and woman of the party were found sleeping together under a waggon which did not belong to them, and again cautioned by the police. On the Saturday previous to my committal the whole party were found on the estate of Trelissick, in the parish of St. Erth, where they did a great deal of injury, breaking down trees and lighting fires, when the police again cautioned them, and finding them there again on Monday, apprehended them and brought them to me. They had passed through the western part of the country, between Redruth and St. Erth, begging and telling fortunes. The superintendent of police had given particular directions to the police to watch them, as there had been many thefts committed in that part of the county, and this party of Gipsies had been suspected of being connected with them. When the party were brought before me, I examined them individually and collectively, and found that they had no visible moans of subsistence, and could give no satisfactory account of themselves. Under these circumstances, for the safety of the county, I considered it my duty to commit them."

EDUCATION (INSPECTORS' REPORTS).

  EXPLANATION.
  MR. LOWE: Sir, I have to solicit for a few moments the indulgence of the House once more to make a short personal Explanation, and I need that indulgence very greatly, because I am quite aware that the case is one of the first impression, and I may appear, though I hope wrongly, to trespass too much on the indulgence of the House in what I am going to say. The fact is in the remembrance of the House that yesterday a document was produced of which I had no notice—a document of which I had no knowledge, a document of which it was impossible for me to give any satisfactory account to the House without searching the records of the Privy Council Office. On that

  463
  document a statement was founded, that though what I had said to the House on a former occasion was true in intent it was absolutely false in fact. Now, I am not accustomed to have the words "absolutely false" connected with any statement of mine, and though those words were coupled with the statement that my intent was to speak the truth, I cannot regard them with indifference, and therefore throw myself on the indulgence of the House, asking hon. Members to allow me to explain what that document really is, and to give them the result of the searches which I have made about it. According to the technical rules of debate, I know that I ought to have risen at once in my place and have explained. But I was unable to do so then; I can now; and if the House will permit me I will proceed to do so. Sir, there are two kinds of Inspectors' Reports. The one, general Reports—which are made for the purpose of being submitted to Parliament—on the general state of the district in which the Inspector reports. It was with reference to these Reports that the Minute of 1861 was issued, which has been so much discussed; it was with reference to these Reports that the Resolution come to by this House on the 12th of April was passed; it was with reference—and solely with reference to these Reports that the explanation which I offered to the House on the 19th of April was made; and I venture to say it was with reference to these Reports the Committee was moved for last night by Her Majesty's Government. There is a second Report made by the Inspectors which may be called a "special" or "particular" Report. It is the Report of the Inspector on each school he visits, and it is not intended to be laid before Parliament. It is a Departmental matter; it is made by the Inspector to the office; and a summary of that Report is prepared in the office and sent to the school at the same time as the grant is made. When I said on a former occasion that I had given orders in 1862 that no interlineation should take place in the Reports of the Inspectors, I spoke, and I am sure the House understood me to speak, of the Reports which were laid before Parliament. It was to them that the whole discussion was directed; it was only with respect to them it could be said with any plausibility the instructions were contrary to the previous understanding; and I am sure the memory of every
  464
  hon. Gentleman will bear me out when I say that those were the only Reports we had in our mind during the whole of these debates. A Report was produced yesterday which had been given to the noble Lord who produced it by Mr. Morell, who had been an Inspector of Schools, and who had been dismissed from his office; and who, as the noble Lord says, naturally reveals the secrets of his prison-house. That Reports mainly consists of some not very material remarks on schools, and concludes with these words—
  "The discipline is good, and the instruction, though not very forward, is accurate and appropriate as far as it goes, and as advanced as can be expected, considering how recently the present teachers have been in charge."
  The noble Lord stated last night that the words "considering how recently the present teachers have been in charge "had been expunged by the Department of the Privy Council, and that circumstance was alleged in direct contradiction of my assertion that, as far as I knew, there had been no expurgation or interlineation in any of the Inspectors' Reports since 1862. I am sure every hon. Gentleman who heard the noble Lord must have understood that the Report then produced and then urged as a distinct proof that my statement was absolutely false— that it was exactly contrary to the truth, and other words equally strong—that the Report then read and produced was one of the kind to which my observations originally pointed. Therefore, I believe it will be with some surprise the House will hear it was not of that nature. It was the Report of a single and particular school—a school Reports prepared for the information of the Department, and not, therefore, coming within the Minute—not coming within the order issued in 1862—not coming within the class of Reports which have been under the consideration of the House. Further, it was said that it had been returned to the Inspector to be expurgated. I have inspected to-day, by the kindness of the Lord President, the copy of the Reports made by the copying machine in the office, and that copy as well as the testimony of every one in the office who had anything to do with the Report, proves that it was sent to the school without those words being omitted, the omission of which is made use of to give me me this flat and absolute contradiction, I thank the House for the kindness with which they have heard me, and I hope

  465
  I may be allowed to draw attention for a single instant to a practice which is growing up among us. I do not allude to the practice of officials betraying the trust reposed in them. In all professions however honourable—and there is none more honourable than the permanent official service —there are men of that kind; but what I do allude to and what I do press on the consideration of the House is the practice, the new practice, which is growing up of Members of Parliament suffering themselves to be the instruments for putting off these contraband wares. I have only to say—
  MR. SPEAKER: Order!
  COLONEL FRENCH: I rise to Order, Sir. As long as a Member of this House confines himself to personal explanation, the House is willing to hear him, though he may not be strictly in order; but when an hon. Member goes beyond that, and attempts to cast a censure on other Members, I trust the House will not give its countenance to such a proceeding.
  LORD ROBERT CECIL: I hardly know whether I ought to address the House in answer to a statement so irregularly brought forward. The House has appointed a Committee to examine this Question, and it appears to me that it would be a far more convenient way for the right hon. Gentleman to have waited till he could have appeared before that Committee and made, in his own justification, the statement we have just heard. Part of the statement, as I understand it, consists of a contradiction of the allegation made by Mr. Morell; and I have only to say that Mr. Morell will, no doubt, be summoned before the Committee, when we shall have an opportunity of hearing him, and of judging as to whether, in stating what he does, he is stating what is true or not. The right hon. Gentleman has spoken as to the various kinds of Inspectors' Reports. I confess I have read over his former speech to-day, and my opinion is, that his words, naturally interpreted, seem to refer to all the Reports which the Inspectors make. He now tells us that the Committee of the Privy Council never, since the date to which he has referred, mutilated the general Reports of the Inspectors, but he appears to admit that the practice has prevailed with reference to the special or particular Reports. I regret that I did not draw the distinction, but I doubt whether the Committee of Council will feel very much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman for the distinction which
  466
  he has drawn between the general and the special Reports.

THE WHITSUNTIDE RECESS.
Moved, "That the House at rising do adjourn till Thursday next."
DENMARK AND GERMANY—THE AUSTRIAN SQUADRON—OBSERVATIONS.
MR. DARBY GRIFFITHsaid, he rose to call attention to the permission given by the Government to the Austrian Squadron to leave these shores, and to take up a position favourable for the further prosecution of hostilities against Denmark, without any practical check or supervision by means of the presence of a British Naval force. It would be in the recollection of the House, that in the beginning of the week a question was asked of the Government with reference to the Austrian Squadron which had passed up the Channel. The right hon. Gentleman, in answering the question, seemed somewhat to avoid the real question. He said that the vessel was not going to the Baltic, but he did not give the slightest intimation that she had gone to the North Sea. He hoped the right hon. Gentleman would not give the sanction of his example to such an evasive mode of answering questions.
CASE OF MR. HERBERT.
  OBSERVATIONS.
  SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: I wish to say a few words on the part of an absent friend. He is a gentleman who is very sensitive on points that affect his character. I allude to Mr. Herbert. He is particularly anxious that no misconception should prevail in this House with regard to what he is supposed to have stated respecting his picture. It had come to his knowledge that an impression prevails in this House that he said something to this effect—that he will not undertake to go on with any more work unless he shall be paid the sum of £5,000. Mr. Herbert is very anxious that it should be distinctly understood that he never said or intended to say anything of the sort. Mr. Herbert is a gentleman who works far more for fame and reputation than for profit, though he feels, and it is felt by his friends, that the work he has done occupied an extent of time that renders it a matter of justice to himself and to his family that some additional remuneration should be given to him.
UNITED STATES. THE CONFEDERATE SHIP "GEORGIA."

  OBSERVATIONS.
  MR. T. BARING: I rise to call attention to the circumstances under which the Georgia has been allowed to enter the port of Liverpool and to put a question on the subject. As I bring this matter before the House simply as one of English interest, I shall not refer to the feelings or prospects of either of the contending parties, nor shall I endeavour to provoke an expression of sympathy with either side. I wish to make no charge against any one, and, if I refer at all to the past, it will be merely for the purpose of illustrating the position in which the country is placed as to its international engagements. The question is one of very considerable importance, and deserves, I am persuaded, the serious consideration of the House. An incident has recently occurred which is of a most extraordinary character. A vessel of war carrying, as we are told, the flag and commission of the Confederate Government, has recently entered the port of Liverpool. She is still there, and when the House hears the history of her career, it will be somewhat surprised at the course which has been pursued. This is her history:— The Japan, otherwise the Virginia, commonly known as the Georgia, was built at Dumbarton, on the Clyde. She was equipped by a Liverpool firm. Her crew was shipped by the same Liverpool firm for Shanghai, and sent round to Greenock by steamer. She was entered on the 31st of March, 1863, as for Point de Galle and Hong Kong, with a crew of forty-eight men. She cleared on the 1st of April. She left her anchorage on the morning of the 2nd of April, ostensibly to try her engines, but did not return. She had no armament on leaving Greenock, but a few days after her departure a small steamer called the Allar, freighted with guns, shot, shell, &c., and having on board a partner of the Liverpool firm who had equipped her and shipped her crew, left Newhaven and met the Georgia off the coast of France, near Ushant. The cargo of the Allar was successfully transferred to the Georgia on the 8th or 9th of April; her crew consisted of British subjects. The Allar put into Plymouth on the 11th of April, bringing the Liverpool merchant who had directed the proceedings throughout, and bringing also fifteen seamen who had refused to proceed in the Georgia, on learning her real character. The
  468
  rest of the crew remained. At the time of her departure the Georgia was registered as the property of a Liverpool merchant, a partner of the firm which shipped the crew. She remained the property of this person until the 23rd of June, when the register was cancelled, he notifying the collector of her sale to foreign owners. During this period—namely, from the 1st of April to the 23rd of June, the Georgia being still registered in the name of a Liverpool merchant, and thus his property, was carrying on war against the United States, with whom we were in alliance. It was while still a British vessel that she captured and burnt the Dictator, and captured and released under bond the Griswold, the same vessel which had brought corn to the Lancashire sufferers. The crew of the Georgia was paid through the same Liverpool firm. A copy of an advance-note used is to be found in the diplomatic correspondence. The same firm continued to act in this capacity throughout the cruise of the Georgia. After cruising in the Atlantic and burning and bonding a number of vessels, the Georgia made for Cherbourg, where she arrived on the 28th of October. There was at the time much discontent among the crew. Many deserted, leave of absence was given to others, and their wages were paid all along by the same Liverpool firm. In order to get the Georgia to sea again, the Liverpool firm enlisted, in Liverpool, some twenty seamen, and sent them to Brest. The Georgia left Cherbourg on a second cruise, but having no success she returned to that port, and thence to Liverpool, where her crew have been paid off without any concealment, and the vessel is now laid up. Here, then, is the case of a vessel clandestinely built, fraudulently leaving the port of her construction, taking Englishmen on board as her crew, and waging war against the United States, an ally of ours, without having once entered a port of the Power the commission of which she bears, but being for some time the property of an English subject. She has now returned to Liverpool, and has returned, I am told, with a British crew on board, who, having enlisted in war against an ally of ours, have committed a misdemeanour in the sight of the law. We hear nothing of the steps which, under those circumstances, were taken by the Government, but I feel assured they have done all that lay in their power, and was consistent with

  469
  their duty under the existing law to prevent the repetition of such an outrage. It is, therefore, not their conduct in the matter, but the impotency and insufficiency of the Foreign Enlistment Act, which our courts of justice find it impossible to interpret, that I wish to bring under the notice of the House. Many of these vessels are afloat committing injury on our ally. The vessels to which I allude, are vessels which would undoubtedly have been arrested if time had been given, and if their purpose had been known. The question is, in fact, can we be said to be carrying out our obligations as a neutral Power towards a belligerent which is an ally, in a manner consistent with International Law, though it may he in harmony with our municipal law, while such a state of things is permitted to exist? For my own part, I have no wish to lose myself in the mazes of a legal discussion on the subject, but common sense, as well as International Law, I believe, prescribe that a neutral should act towards a belligerent who is an ally, as she would like, under corresponding circumstances, to be done by. It was in order to prevent a war between neutrals and belligerents that the Foreign Enlistment Act was passed; and if vessels are allowed to proceed on a course of devastation, if they are admitted into the ports of our dependencies and colonies, and not only that, but to put into ports in this country, is it not, I will ask, time to consider whether we should not do our duty towards others, and whether the existing law affords us the means of protecting the interests of our ally as well as our own? The question as to the extent to which those vessels ought to be admitted to the ports of our colonies and dependencies is, I contend, one of serious importance; but it is, at the same time, one as to which I think there can be no doubt what course the Government should adopt. When a vessel fraudulently leaves our ports, which we know would have been arrested here had her objects been ascertained and her construction certified, and proceeds to carry into effect proceedings of hostility against an ally to the endangering of the peace of this country, it seems to me that it is the duty of the Government to avail themselves in her case of the powers which they possess, and by proclamation to shut our ports against her. If the House will permit me, I will read on the subject a passage from a writer on International Law, who
  470
  signs himself "Historicus," and who says, speaking of the Alabama—
  "First of all, the English Government must decide on the best information at their disposal, whether she was or was not unlawfully equipped in this country in breach of our neutrality. Their decision on this point ought to be final, for they are the sole judges of it, and the Federal authorities may inform their judgment, but cannot question their determination. If the English Government determine that the Alabama was net unlawfully equipped within the realm, she will, of course, enjoy the privileges and immunities of any other lawful belligerent cruiser. If, on the other hand, she is decided to have been unlawfully equipped, then she ought to be forbidden access to any port within the jurisdiction of Great Britain. If she comes within our ports with a prize, her prize should be taken from her, and restored to her original owner, and she herself compelled to depart."
  There is another extract from the same writer, to which I wish also to invite the attention of hon. Members. It is as follows: —
  "Now, it is a sound and salutary rule of international practice, established by the Americans themselves in 1791, that vessels which have been equipped in violation of the laws of a neutral. State shall be excluded from that hospitality: which is extended to other belligerent cruisers, on whose origin there is no such taint. Accordingly, the Cabinet of Washington compelled all the French privateers which had been illegally fitted out in America against England to leave the ports of the United States, and orders were issued to the Custom House officers to prevent their return. This course of proceeding appears equally consonant to the principles of law and the dictates of policy. The question then remains—Was the Alabama unlawfully equipped and manned within the jurisdiction of Great Britain? Now, setting aside the vexed question of equipment, I think there can be very little doubt on that of enlistment. The question is one which from its very nature is not and cannot become the subject of judicial determination, because a neutral Government cannot exercise a jurisdiction over such a vessel. It is a matter on which the Executive of the neutral Government must, according to the best information it can obtain, form its own judgment, and that judgment is final and conclusive on all parties. Now, I observe that in a despatch dated March 27, 1863 (Parliamentary Paper, p. 2), Lord Russell writes, "The British Government has done everything in its power to execute the law; but I admitted that the cases of the Alabama and the Oreto were a scandal, and in some degree a reproach to our law.' Now, with the greatest deference to those persons who may be of an opposite opinion, I submit that vessels of which such a statement can be properly made—and that it was properly made no one acquainted with the circumstances of their outfit and manning can honestly doubt—are not entitled to the hospitality of the country whose laws they have eluded and abused. I think that to deny to the Florida, and Alabama access to our ports would be the legitimate and dignified manner of expressing our disapproval of the fraud which

  471
  has been practised upon our neutrality. If we abstain from taking such a course, I fear we may justly lie under the imputation of having done less to vindicate our good faith than the American Government consented at our instance on former occasions to do."
  Again, Earl Russell, in a despatch written in the month of June, said that the British Government had done everything in their power to execute the law, but he confessed that the case of the Alabama was a scandal to our laws. Now, such vessels as the Georgia are vessels which avowedly ought to have been stopped if their purpose had been known. They are vessels whose destination is to roam about, never getting home, and which are tainted with the offence of having violated our neutrality. They are vessels, therefore, which, on every ground, have no claim to the hospitality of the country, and I am bound to say that both our international obligations and a due regard for our own interests ought to have led us to exclude them from our ports. The Georgia, has arrived in Liverpool and there discharged her crew, and what guarantee have we that other vessels may not do the same; that our neutrality may not be violated, and that we may not hereafter have to deal with a state of things in which our position will be reversed. While, therefore, I am anxious to express my belief that under the law as it stands we cannot carry our international obligations fully into effect, I am likewise desirous of inviting the attention of the House to the situation in which this country will be if the precedents now established are acted upon in the event of our being involved in war, while other States are neutral. Under the present construction of our municipal law there is no necessity that a belligerent should have a port or even a seashore. Provided she has money, or that money is supplied to her by a neutral, she may fit out vessels, and those vessels need not go to the country to which they are said to belong but may go about the seas dealing destruction to British shipping and property. Take the case, which I hope we shall avoid, of our being at war with Germany. There would, as things now stand, be nothing to prevent the Diet of Frankfort from having a fleet. A number of the small States of Germany might unite together and become a great naval Power. Money is all that is required for the purpose, and Saxony without a seashore might have a First Lord of the Admiralty without any docks, who might have a large fleet at his disposal.
  472
  The only answer we could make under those circumstances to France and the United States, who as neutrals might fit out vessels against us on the pretence that they were German cruisers, was that we would go to war with them; so that by the course of policy which we are pursuing we render ourselves liable to the alternative of having our property completely destroyed, or entering into a contest with every neutral Power in the world. We ought, under these circumstances, to ask ourselves what we have at stake. I will not trouble the House with statistics on the point, but we all know that our commerce is to be found extending itself to every sea, that our vessels float in the waters of every clime, that even with our cruisers afloat it would not be easy to pick up an Alabama, and that the destruction of our property might go on despite all our power and resources. What would be the result? That we must submit to the destruction of our property, or that our shipping interests must withdraw their ships from the ocean. That is a danger, the apprehension of which is not confined to myself, but is shared by many who are far better able to form a judgment than I am. Recollect that your shipping is nearly twice as large as that of the United States. If you follow the principle you are now adopting as regards the United States, you must be prepared to stand the consequences, so strongly was this felt by shipowners that memorials have already been addressed to the Government upon the subject. Last year such a memorial was sent to Earl Russell by the shipowners of Hull, and, if I am not misinformed, a similar one has been sent by the shipowners of Belfast to his hon. and learned Friend the Member for that borough, who has forwarded it to the noble Earl. The memorialists stated that they viewed with the greatest apprehension the permission which has now been given for the violation of our neutrality and the clandestine furnishing of ships to a belligerent; and last night the hon. Member for Liverpool presented a petition, signed by almost all the great shipowners of that place, enforcing the same view and expressing the same anxiety. I am a little surprised at this manifestation, because what is happening around us is a source of great profit to our shipowners; but it is a proof that they are sensible that the future danger will far preponderate over the present benefit and advantages. Merchants and shipowners

  473
  are generally a quiescent body, attending to their own affairs and leaving the concerns of the country to those in whose abilities, position, and experience they have confidence, and on whom they can rely, on whatever side of the House they may sit, patriotically to unite to avert the evils against which private indiduals cannot secure themselves. I think it a matter of regret that no proposal is made by the Government for the modification of the existing law, and I cannot imagine that if such an attempt were made hon. Members on my own side of the House, who may at times be placed in power, would refuse to assist in taking steps to insure this country against the dangers which menace its commerce. We ought, I think, no longer to dally with this question. It is one of immense importance and of a most dangerous character. Neither the Government nor anyone else in this House, I am sure, can be deterred from proposing or adopting a necessary measure by the fear that they may be taunted with acting at the dictation, of the United States. No one can be more indisposed than I should be to sacrifice the rights, the interests, or the honour of the country to the dictation of a foreign Power, but no one can be more convinced that we ought to blush for ourselves and our country if we are deterred by the fear of some newspaper taunt, some electioneering speech, or some piece of stump oratory, from yielding to the dictation of reason and good sense, and applying a remedy where an evil has been proved to exist. I have heard it said that this is not the time to take such a step, that we ought to wait until the war is over, when we could pass an Act without apprehension that its purport or intention might be mistaken. Has any Foreign Enlistment Act been ever passed in time of peace? Our own Act was passed in 1819, while Spain was at war with her colonies. And let the House remember the act of General Washington, perhaps the boldest act in the life of that illustrious man, when he issued his proclamation to prevent the citizens of the United States from taking part in a war against Great Britain. The whole feeling of that country was on the side of France. "France and Freedom!" was, as a cry, opposed to "Great Britain and Tyranny!" All the recollections of the past war with Great Britain were fresh in the memory of the Americans, and their gratitude to France
  474
  was still alive. Popular feeling was strongly against General Washington, and yet he perilled his power, his influence, and his popularity, and had the courage to propose and carry a measure for which he was afterwards praised and blessed by his countrymen, because they recognized it as being in accordance with wisdom, with their own interests, and with justice. What is the moral? The moral which I draw from that is that, whatever may be our individual sympathies or our wishes and views as to the causes or results of the pending contest, we need not be afraid of being charged with acting under the dictation of a country which is now engaged in the most exhausting conflict that has ever occurred. We ought not to yield to sympathy when the dictate of duty is clear that we should act to others as we would that they should act to us; we ought not to be prevented from adopting such a measure as may avert the calamity to which I have adverted so imperfectly, but which now looms in the view of every shipowner; we ought not to be deterred from passing such an Act as will protect this country against the charge of being neutral only when it suits her purposes, and violating it when it suits her interests. I cannot help thinking that if there is to be a change of the law this is the moment when those who guide and control our destinies are bound to consider what course shall be pursued. We could do it now without giving rise to any idea that we have been threatened. If we do it now we may save ourselves, while if it is delayed we cannot avoid retribution hereafter. If we miss this opportunity, what we may do at a time of general peace will not be accepted when war occurs. We shall be referred back not to what we have done after the war is over, but to the acts which we have sanctioned by our present policy. I am anxious to ask the Government whether they do not see that what has occurred at Liverpool may lead to our neutrality being called in question, that it perils the performance of our national obligations, and may seriously affect our interests and welfare in the future.
  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: Sir, with many things which have been said by my hon. Friend in the course of his able and temperate speech I entirely agree. No one who has observed the conduct which the Government have endeavoured to pursue with regard to this

  475
  important and intricate political subject during the past two years can doubt that, whether successfully or otherwise, they have endeavoured to the best of their power to vindicate the laws of this country, and, at the same time, to fulfil the obligations of a sincere and impartial neutrality. I know that these professions will not meet with the assent of those who, in their own minds, have no sympathy with the neutrality itself, who have given themselves, doubtless under the impulse of generous motives, to entire, unqualified, and enthusiastic sympathy with one or the other of the belligerents. Nevertheless, I have such confidence in the justice and right feeling of the country as to believe that the people of England generally will perceive that the Government, in the course which they have pursued in circumstances of no slight difficulty, have really desired to maintain the law and preserve the honour of the country, and at the same time not to deviate from the path of a real and impartial neutrality. Addressing myself first to the last and most generally important of the topics of my hon. Friend's speech, I need hardly say that we are quite sensible of the gravity of the public evil which, exists when merchants or any other persons, in this country hold themselves at liberty, by all kinds of shifts and evasions, to treat with contempt Her Majesty's proclamation of neutrality; to make themselves parties in a war in which Her Majesty has proposed to be neutral; to shelter themselves under those opportunities of escape which the just regard of the law of our country for persons accused of any offence invariably offers; and to do acts which in their immediate effects place in peril the friendly relations of this and another great nation, and which, in their ultimate consequences, may possibly recoil with disastrous and destructive effect upon the trade and commerce of their own country. The Government had some right to hope that in the circumstances of such a war as this English merchants occupying eminent positions would not spell out the law under the advice of lawyers, saying "I cannot find it in the bond," and availing themselves of every means of escape which ingenuity can suggest hasten to plunge this country into peril, and create a precedent for future mischiefs and dangers, against which the law of this country seeks to provide. I hope the time will
  476
  soon come—indeed, I think I may infer from the memorial to which my hon. Friend has referred that the time has already come, when the voice of the mercantile community of England will be raised, so that those who may be unwilling to hold themselves bound by Her Majesty's proclamation of neutrality shall see that they cannot expect the moral support of the great body of their fellow-countrymen. I must endeavour to show that the conduct which has been pursued by Her Majesty's Government on this subject has been, at least, of that character which the country had a right to expect. The House is aware that there are only three vessels which are alleged, and in those cases I do not say the allegations are well founded, as they have never been brought to the test of judicial proceedings, but there are only three vessels altogether which are alleged to have been fitted out in this country in violation of the law, and with the practical effect of placing this country in the situation of ministering in an important and formidable manner to the warlike requirements of one of the two belligerents. Her Majesty's Government believe that the law was intended to strike, and does strike, at such acts. With regard to those three ships, the House will recollect that the first which left the shores of this country, the Oreto, afterwards the Florida, left before any information upon which the Government could act had been imparted to them. That vessel was afterwards arrested at Nassau, was tried there and acquitted, but it was found that there was reasonable cause for the arrest. So far the Government was not to blame. As to the next ship, the Alabama, I need not repeat what was said upon a former occasion as to the steps which were taken by the Government, after full consideration of the evidence laid before them, with a view to arrest that vessel. It is well known to the House and to the country that orders to that effect were given, but the ship in the meantime made her escape. Then, lastly, there was this vessel, the Georgia, as to which no information whatever reached Her Majesty's Government; no evidence upon which we could act, until she was actually gone. So successfully disguised were the real designs of those connected with that ship that, as my hon. Friend has stated, the crew were actually engaged for a voyage to Shanghai, and all other arrangements

  477
  for arming her were made with a view to concealment and disguise, and it was only off the coast of France that, meeting another vessel, she received her armament and re-enlisted her crew. The Government, therefore, had no opportunity of interfering so as to stop that vessel. If there be those who think that all those proceedings connected with these ships were perfectly lawful, they will, I am sure, join with me in regretting that, if lawful, they were not also open, avowed, and above-board. It does not seem altogether probable, that if the persons engaged on these proceedings had believed in their lawfulness, they would have taken all possible pains to disguise their real character. Afterwards, as the House is aware, Her Majesty's Government took action in the case of the Alexandra, and since then they have done the same with regard to two other vessels, concerning which I will say nothing, as they will soon be the subject of judicial trial. I may also mention that in Scotland the Government directed the seizure of the vessel Pampero, under the Foreign Enlistment Act, and the result of that proceeding has been that a verdict has been given by consent for the Crown, and that, while great liberality has been shown in waiving the forfeiture to the Crown, security has been taken against the employment of the vessel for any belligerent service, and the authority of the law has been successfully vindicated. I am happy to be able to say that, whatever may have been the difficulties which in these cases the Government have had to encounter in point of law or evidence, the interference of the Government does appear to have been productive of good effect, as it has impeded the progress of the system of fitting out naval armaments for a belligerent State. We have no reason to believe that the efforts of the Government have been unsuccessful in their practical object, nor even so far as regards the elucidation of the law; although it would, perhaps, be premature to express a confident opinion upon a subject concerning which high authorities have differed. But I cannot avoid expressing a sanguine hope that the result of the measures taken by the Government will be to clear up some of the difficulty attaching to the construction of the law, and to lead in future to a better observance of it. I am encouraged in that hope by the fact that in the Court of Exchequer two learned Judges adopted the construc-
  478
  tion of the Act upon which the Crown had been advised to proceed, Their construction has since received the endorsement of a learned Judge in the Queen's Bench, under circumstances which make it probable that other Judges of that Court may concur in his opinion, and in the case of the Pampero, in Scotland, the Judges of the Court of Session pronounced opinions tending, to a great extent, to confirm the construction of the Act contended for by the Crown.
  The result of all this is to leave the Government in a situation in which they have a right to hope that the law, as it is, may in all such cases be capable of being vindicated, and that steps taken to vindicate it will not fail in their object; and therefore the House will probably think that it will not be improper, instead of now suggesting a change of the law, for the Government to act upon that view; but if it should prove to be otherwise, and that the present law is not sufficient, then I trust they may hereafter look for that support and encouragement from this House and the country which upon a subject so important it is essential to obtain. If, in the absence of such support and encouragement, proposals for a change of the law were ineffectually made, it would commit those who ought to have the common interest of the country at heart, to a premature expression of opinion, which might have disastrous effects upon the future of this country. We think, therefore, that if it should ever become necessary to consider the subject, it should be considered at a time when no party feelings nor temporary sympathies may exist to induce the House to take a course which it may be difficult afterwards to retract, and which, if persevered with, might be attended with serious consequences to the welfare of the country. Under these circumstances, the House will, no doubt, consider that Government are doing right in adhering to their original hope that the law as it is may be found sufficient for its purpose, and, at all events, that they ought not to propose any change in the law until they are convinced that there is an absolute necessity for it, and that such proposals will receive the encouragement and support of the House and the country, without which they could not be carried into effect. Having said that, I will address myself to the particular subject of the Motion of my hon. Friend.

  479
  I have shown that with regard to the former history of the Georgia, the Government have omitted nothing which they could do under the circumstances. That ship has now returned as a Confederate ship—a public ship of war, with a regular commission as such. I must here notice one observation of my hon. Friend. He says that from the 1st of April, 1863, until the following 23rd of June, this ship—the Georgia—was registered in this country in the name of a British owner, a merchant of Liverpool, and that therefore she was cruising, burning, and destroying vessels at a time when she was a British ship. I must demur altogether to the law of my hon. Friend in that respect. The register is nothing but the evidence of the title of a British owner for a municipal purpose in this country. A ship which has a British register, and which is afterwards transferred to a foreign belligerent Power, cannot, from the mere fact of her still remaining registered in England as the property of a British owner, in any way be justly styled a British ship. Nor can it be said that she has not become what this vessel really is —a public vessel of war. I regret that my hon. Friend should have used an argument that may seem to give countenance to assertions which have repeatedly been made, but which are quite destitute of foundation, that these ships are British pirates. They are not British, and they are not pirates. That expression is untrue in fact, dishonourable to this country; and I trust that all those who have the honour of this country at heart, whatever they may see to condemn in the conduct of persons concerned in fitting out and navigating such vessels as those referred to, will not give encouragement to a proposition so extravagant, and so completely without foundation.
  I now come to the point suggested by the Motion of my hon. Friend. He points to the fact that the Georgia is now at Liverpool under circumstances which show that she has never been in any Confederate port. Whether on that account she ought to have been allowed to come in or not I will notice hereafter. The ship, however, came to Liverpool, being at the time a regularly commissioned public ship of war. There is no doubt she was entitled to come in in that character by licence of the Crown, as long as the rules issued by Her Majesty in January, 1862, remain unaltered, because those rules permit ships of
  480
  war belonging to both belligerents to come into our ports under certain restrictions. They must not remain more than twenty-four hours, except for repairs; they must not receive repairs in the nature of warlike equipment; and there are strict limits as to leaving as soon as the repairs are completed. This ship being a public ship of war of the Confederate States, is permitted to come into our ports, and so conies in lawfully as a ship of war. The Government desired to have information regarding the circumstances under which she had entered our port, and as to the length of time she was likely to remain. They understood she had been brought into dock, it was presumed, for the purpose of repair, and it was afterwards stated that she was likely to be dismantled and sold. If the latter were the case, there would be no harm done to the other belligerent Power by relieving her from all fear of further opposition on the part of the dismantled vessel. On the other hand, if there be no positive pledge that she will not leave as a ship of war, it will be the duty of Her Majesty's Government to require her to depart as soon as possible.
  My hon. Friend has, however, raised a larger and more general question, for he has asked whether the Government think the admission of such ships as he describes that ship to be consistent with their international obligations, their profession of neutrality, and the preservation of British interests. The Government certainly has not considered the limited and qualified admission of ships of this kind into British ports to be at all inconsistent with their duty in any respect. But for the first element in the case to which the hon. Gentleman has called attention—that the vessel was originally manned and equipped from British ports—I think that every one would grant her right to admission into our ports, in the same way, and under the same conditions, as ships of the Federal States are admitted. I must, however, notice that my Friend has imported into the case a consideration which has been frequently dwelt upon in the various publications issued upon this subject—namely, that the ship has never been in any of the ports of the belligerent Power under whose flag she sails. It is argued that this is a circumstance which prevents a ship from acquiring the character of a belligerent ship of war. It has been supposed that there is some rule or

  481
  other, some settled principle of International Law, which will bear out this conclusion. It should not be our practice to invent new rules of International Law to suit particular cases, and I may state that such a rule as this was never heard of. To say that a country whose ports are blockaded is not at liberty to avail herself of all the resources which may be at her command in other parts of the world, that she cannot buy ships in neutral territory and commission them as ships of war without bringing them to her own country first, is a doctrine which is quite preposterous, and all the arguments founded upon such a doctrine only tend to throw dust into men's eyes and to mislead them, We cannot, therefore, upon those grounds make this ship an exception to our ordinary rules. And now I come to the real question. I have not the least doubt that we have a right, if we thought fit, to exclude from our own ports any particular ship or class of ships, if we consider that they have violated our neutrality; but such power is simply discretionary on the part of the Government, and should be exercised with a due regard to all the circumstances of the case. Does the circumstance of a ship happening to have been fitted out in violation of the neutrality of a neutral nation entitle her, in the first place, to be refused recognition as a public ship of war? Happily, we find an answer to this question in the history of the jurisprudence of the United States; and I do not find that the United States, which have really settled all the doctrines of law applicable to this kind of violation of neutrality by fitting out vessels in their ports for belligerent nations, ever adopted the practice of inquiring into the previous history of public ships of war which laboured under the suspicion or allegation of having been fitted out in their ports in violation of their neutrality. In the case of the Santissima Trinidad, Mr, Justice Story said—
  "In general, the commission of a public ship, signed by the proper authorities of the nation to which she belongs, is complete proof of her national character. A bill of sale is not necessary to be produced, nor will the courts of a foreign country inquire into the means by which the title to property has been acquired. It would be to exert the right of examining into the validity of the acts of the foreign Sovereign, and to sit in judgment upon them in cases where he has not conceded the jurisdiction, and where it would be inconsistent with his own supremacy. The commission, therefore, of a public ship, when duly
  482
  authenticated, so far at least as foreign courts are concerned, imports absolute verity, and the title is not examinable. The property must be taken to be duly acquired, and cannot be controverted. This has been the settled practice between nations, and it is a rule founded in public convenience and policy, and cannot be broken in upon without endangering the peace and repose as well of neutral as of belligerent Sovereigns. The commission in the present case is not expressed in the most unequivocal terms, but its fair purport and interpretation must be deemed to apply to a public ship of the Government. If we add to this the corroborative testimony of our own and the British Consul at Buenos Ayres, as well as that of private citizens, to the notoriety of her claim of a public character, and her admission into our own ports as a public ship, with the immunities and privileges belonging to such a ship, with the express approbation of our own Government, it does not seem too much to assert, whatever may be the private suspicion of a lurking American interest, that she must be judicially held to be a public ship of the country whose commission she bears."
  The ship Independencia, to which those words applied, was one by which the United States Foreign Enlistment Act had been violated; and in the case of the Cassius also, under circumstances like those of the Georgia, it was decided that neither the ship, nor her officers, could be made amenable to the jurisdiction of the Courts of the United States, when she came in, after having taken prizes, in the character of a public ship of war. The other belligerent has, indeed, no concern whatever in the course which the neutral Government may think fit to adopt with reference to this vessel; and if the Government refused her admission to the ports of the United Kingdom, it would only be done for the purpose of vindicating our authority. I cannot find, however, that the United States ever followed such a course, with respect to a ship of this character. The Santissima Trinidad and the Cassius were both received into the ports of the United States, were held not to be amenable to their courts of law, and were never ordered by the Government to leave any port. There are, also, a very considerable number of cases reported in which prizes, taken by ships fitted out in breach of the neutrality laws of the United Stales, and afterwards brought into the ports of the United States, were Cither restored, or questions raised in courts of law as to their restoration; but I can find no instance of any prohibition or exclusion from any port of that country of any ship, being a public ship of war, which had taken any one of those prizes. We are not, therefore, following the authority of any

  483
  precedent in the United States, if we exclude this vessel from our ports. The hon. Member for Huntingdon, has asked if the Government think the admission of such vessels to British harbours consistent with our international obligations. This question renders it necessary to determine the precise right of the other belligerent in this matter. Now, upon this question, I will quote from another judgment of Mr. Justice Story, in reference to the case of the Amistad de la Rues. In discussing this matter, I hope not to utter a single word in the slightest degree offensive to any one in the United States, and least of all to their Government; but I cannot help wishing that the authority I have mentioned had been more recollected when, over and over again, those extraordinary and extravagant demands were made upon our Government to pay the value of all the ships taken on the high seas by the Alabama and similar vessels. I need hardly remind the House that in 1793, when the United States did give us compensation for certain prizes not restored, that compensation was strictly limited to ships brought into their ports by ships fitted out in violation of their laws, and was not extended to any prizes taken upon the high seas and not brought into their ports. They did not even restore, or make compensation for, prizes which had been brought into their ports by French privateers, fitted out in those ports before the time when they expressly prohibited that practice. All they did was to name a particular date, and to prohibit the French from fitting out more privateers, or bringing in any more of their prizes after that date. Mr. Justice Story thus lays down what is the limit of the obligation which the neutral owes to the belligerent in this matter—
  "When called upon by either of the belligerents to act in such cases, all that justice seems to require is, that the neutral nation should fairly execute its own laws, and give no asylum to the property unjustly captured. It is bound, therefore, to restore the property if found within its own ports; but, beyond this, it is not obliged to interfere between the belligerents."
  So that he distinctly says, we are to execute our laws fairly, we are to give no asylum to prizes captured by ships fitted out in violation of our neutrality, which are property unjustly captured; but he does not say that an asylum may not be given to public ships of war, whatever their previous history; and he adds that, beyond the limits which he mentions, we are not
  484
  obliged to interfere between the belligerents. The authority of Mr. Justice Story, therefore, excludes the proposition, that belligerents have any rights entitling them to require interference by the neutral, to the extent of excluding absolutely from her ports ships of this description, if it does not seem to the neutral herself necessary so to do. I say, then, we have done all which that authority requires us to do. And now I will ask what reasons there are for the hesitation of the Government to take the extreme step of absolutely excluding these particular ships from our ports when, at the same time, all the ships of the United States Government are admitted. Some reasons can be given; the House will judge of them; I believe they have had considerable influence upon the determination of the Government upon this question, and I think they are such as are consistent with an honest desire to maintain our neutrality and fulfil our international obligations. In the first place the maintenance of neutrality is plainly consistent with the maintenance of our own rights, and I entirely repudiate the argument which has been sometimes used, that you are not to enforce your own laws, because the effect of doing so may possibly be to put one of the parties to greater disadvantage than the other. Neutrality does not require that you should at all consider that. On the other hand, where you have no law to enforce, then it becomes worthy of consideration whether you may not be weighing down the balance in a manner not entirely consistent with neutrality, if you adopt voluntarily a rule which would practically exclude from the asylum you allow in your ports the whole of the navy of one belligerent, and no part of the navy of the other belligerent. That is one consideration. And then there is another. The whole of the hon. Gentleman's argument assumes that the facts, and the law applicable to the facts, are substantiated, that we are in a position as between ourselves and the Confederate States to treat the matter as beyond controversy, and to assume that the Georgia was, in fact, fitted out in violation of our neutrality. Now, we may have very strong reason to suspect this, and may even believe it to be true; but to say that we are to act upon strong suspicion or belief against another State upon certain facts which have never been judicially established, and which it is not easy to bring to the test as between Go-

  485
  vernment and Government—that is a proposition which is not without grave consideration to be accepted. The difficulty of that view is increased by the fact that we have no diplomatic relations with the Confederate States, and cannot communicate with them in the ordinary way. For very good reasons we have not recognized them, and we have not therefore the opportunities of intercourse which recognition gives. What is more, the Government of the United States, by its ships, bars us from the means of communication which would ordinarily exist without recognition. Only the other day Her Majesty's Government were anxious to communicate and remonstrate with the Government of the Confederate States on this very subject, and actually gave a commission to one of our diplomatic servants, a consul, to do so; when it was announced, that the blockading squadron under the orders of the United States Government could not permit even a ship of war of this country to enter into a blockaded port for the purpose of that communication. These circumstances greatly enhance the difficulty of bringing to a practical test the question, whether there has been in this case a violation of our neutrality. Upon that allegation the whole argument depends; and here, again, American authority by no means warrants the notion that you ought to act lightly or without cogent proof. In the case of the Santissima Trinidad, to which I have before referred, Mr. Justice Story says, as to the kind of proof which ought to be insisted on in these cases—
  "In a case of the description of that before the Court, where the sovereignty and rights of a foreign belligerent nation are in question, and where the exercise of jurisdiction over captures made under its flag can be justified only by clear proof of the violation of our neutrality, there are still stronger reasons for abstaining from interference, if the testimony is clouded with doubt and suspicion. We adhere to the rule which has been already adopted by this Court, that restitution ought not to be decreed upon the ground of capture in violation of our neutrality, unless the fact be established beyond all reasonable doubts."
  There, again, is a principle which the Con federate Government are entitled to have the benefit of, and which makes it matter of serious difficulty to say, that, because we have very strong moral presumptions and very strong reason to believe that a certain ship of war was fitted out in violation of our neutrality, we are, therefore, to act summarily upon that supposition. You
  486
  have here a mixed question of fact and of law—the facts to be established by evidence, the law to be decided with reference to the facts; and, considering the controversy which has existed as to the bearing and effect of our law, it is not impossible that in some of these cases the Confederate States may have believed that they were acting within that law. All this increases the difficulty; and now I want to suggest some other reasons.
  Of course, if we act according to the suggestions made to us in this case, we must act on the same principles, and deal out the same measure to the other belligerent. And if we are to proceed on grounds of moral belief, and do not stop to ask whether they constitute adequate legal grounds of action—if we are to proceed upon information of the kind which carries conviction to the mind—it is impossible, I grieve to say, to acquit the agents of the United States, although we may acquit their Government, of acts which, upon a large scale, are inconsistent with our neutrality. The case of the Federal ship Kearsarge was a case of this character. Beyond all question a considerable amount of recruiting was carried on at Cork for the purposes of that ship, she being employed at the time in our own waters, or very near them, in looking out for her enemy; and she was furnished with a large addition to her crew from Ireland. Upon that being represented to Mr. Adams, he said, as might have been expected, that it was entirely contrary to the wishes of his Government, and he was satisfied that there must be some mistake. The men were afterwards relanded, but there can be no doubt that there had been a violation of our neutrality. Nevertheless, we admitted the Kearsarge afterwards into English waters. We have not excluded her from our ports, and if we had, I think the United States Government would have considered that they had some cause of offence. But it does not rest there. I see from the paper that the hon. Member for Horsham (Mr. S. Fitzgerald) wants information respecting the enlistment of British subjects for the Federal army. Now, from all quarters, reports reach us which we cannot doubt to be substantially true, that agents have been recruiting for the Federal army, with or without the concurrence of the Federal Government, in Ireland, and engaging men under the pretext of employing them on railways and public works in America, but really with the intention of enlisting

  487
  them, and that many of these men are so enlisted. In Canada and New Brunswick the same practices prevail. Representations have been made to the United States Government respecting particular cases of persons who have been kidnapped into the service and then forced to fight, or treated as deserters, and I feel bound to say that those representations have not met with that prompt and satisfactory attention which we might have expected. How are we to act in this case? Are we to exclude from our ports all the ships of the belligerent whose agents are believed to have been engaged in these practices?—practices which, whatever may be the intention of the United States Government, operate largely to supply their ranks with British subjects in violation of British law. If we are to act in the one case upon suspicion, or upon moral belief going beyond suspicion, it would be difficult to say that we ought not to act so in the other. But in what difficulties we should entangle ourselves were we so to act, not being bound so to act by any international obligation! What may fairly be asked is, that we should do all we can to enforce our own laws within our own jurisdiction: if we do this, we may abstain from doing more, unless, for our own reasons, we find it expedient. That is the course which the Government have taken; that is the course to which they will adhere; and, in view of the difficulties I have mentioned, I think it is a course which is fully justified.
  There is one other consideration of importance which I wish to mention; and here again I hope that what I say will not cause offence in the United States, for I state it because it is true, and because it is important that the matter should be understood. The British Government are not assisted by the Government of the United States in matters of this description. The demands which the United States Government make upon us go so far beyond the limits of anything they can be entitled to ask according to any recognized rules and privileges of International Law, that it becomes absolutely necessary that this Government should exercise great caution indeed before they do acts which might possibly be misunderstood, and might give foundation to the idea that they were done under a supposed necessity of complying with demands of this kind. The House well knows that I refer to the extraordinary demands arising out of the
  488
  case of the Alabama. I have no hesitation in saying that the United States Government by advancing such demands, and by seeking to make our Government responsible for pecuniary compensation for prizes taken by the Alabama upon the high seas and never brought within our ports or in any way whatever under our control, are making demands directly contrary to the principles of International Law laid down by their own jurists; and thereby they render it infinitely more difficult for us at their request to do anything resting on our own discretion, which we are not bound to do in law. What we may fairly say, and what we do say, is this, "We will adhere to the rules laid down by your own authorities. We will execute our own law. We will allow no asylum to prizes or to property unjustly captured. If any such are brought in, any demand for their reclamation shall be investigated. But we will not undertake to recognize claims going beyond these limits. We will not undertake to interfere between belligerents in any other way than that in which we can be shown to be obliged to do so, by the rules of International Law, and the recognized obligations of neutrality."
  MR. W. E. FORSTER, said, that the strong sympathy which he felt with one of the parties in the American contest might have enabled him to obtain information which otherwise he could not have procured; but he should endeavour to treat the question before the House solely from an English point of view, and in an impartial manner. The instructions issued by the Admiralty with reference to the ships of either of the belligerents which might enter any of our ports were as follows:—
  "If any ship of war or privateer of either belligerent shall enter any port, roadstead, or waters belonging to Her Majesty, such vessel shall be required to depart and to put to sea within twenty-four hours after her entrance into such port, roadstead, or waters, except in case of stress of weather, or of her requiring provisions or things necessary for the subsistence of her crew, or repairs, in either of which cases the authorities of the port, or of the nearest port (as the case may be), shall require her to put to sea as soon as possible after the expiration of such period of twenty-four hours, without permitting her to take in supplies beyond what may be necessary for her immediate use; and no such vessel which may have been allowed to remain within British waters for they purpose of repair shall continue in such port, roadstead, or waters for a longer period than twenty-four hours after her necessary repairs shall have been completed."

  489
  The hon. and learned Attorney General had referred to the case of the Georgia, but he had hardly explained why she had been permitted to stay at Liverpool in the manner she had remained there. There was scarcely a colourable ground for alleging that the Georgia went into Liverpool for repairs. She came over from the coast of France, where she had been staying thirty days in the port of Bourdeaux for the purpose of undergoing repairs, and she came ostensibly to England for the purpose of paying off her crew. He should like to ask whether a Federal vessel of war would be allowed to pay off its crew in one of our ports with the same amount of accommodation as had been given to the Confederates. It was said that no one would have a right to call this vessel a British pirate; he (Mr. Forster) had never called any of those vessels by that name, but they must remember what the Georgia was. The Georgia was a Confederate vessel which notoriously had been built in England and sailed from Scotland, having on board at the time she sailed a crew solely composed of British subjects, with two exceptions, and of those exceptions one was a man belonging to Sweden and the other to Russia. She received on the coast of France her equipment from England, and was owned by an English merchant for months after she had began to take prizes. The certificate stated that she was sold to a foreigner on the 23rd of June, 1863; and though the Attorney General seemed to think very little of the matter, he would perhaps correct him (Mr. Forster) if he was wrong in thinking that the fact of being upon the custom-house register as owned by a British merchant gave her the right of application to British consuls in foreign ports until that register was cancelled. Lastly, this ship, having never been into a Confederate port, had come back to Liverpool under the pretence of paying off her crew. The Attorney General had said that it made no difference whether she had been in a Confederate port or not. He (Mr. Forster), however, thought that it did, because it established a precedent which might be used against this country in the future if it happened to be at war. And this brought them to the point. Had the Government done all they could on behalf of English interests, and in consideration of their position hereafter? He hoped the House would seriously apply themselves to that part of the question,—whether the facility that they
  490
  had given as neutrals to that vessel would not tell against them in the future, if by an unfortunate circumstance they became involved in war? That question might be divided into two parts; first, whether the International Law as between England and Foreign countries could be put upon a better footing; and whether all had been done that could be done under the existing law, so as to merit in the future that neutrals should behave to us as we should wish to be treated?
  With regard to the alteration of the law, the Attorney General had given some reasons why it should not be altered; but he did not seem to meet the real point of the question. By that sorrowful war they had an opportunity of putting the International Law of the world upon such a footing as would benefit not only England but civilization in the future. An opportunity presented itself which, he feared, had been lost, but it was for them to see whether it had been lost altogether or not. In the history of international relations, two countries had advocated the rights of neutrals against belligerents—America and France. Now America being a belligerent had asked England to join her in improving the maritime law; and no one would deny that England was in that position that France would have followed her lead in this matter. He might be told that the United States had not honestly and candidly shown a desire to come to such agreement with us; but he thought he could show that she had. On the 19th of December, 1862, Earl Russell wrote to Mr. Adams to the effect, that in the opinion of Her Majesty's Government certain Amendments might be introduced in the Foreign Enlistment Act, and that it was willing to receive from the Government of the United States suggestions as to what amendments might with advantage be made in the Foreign Enlistment Act of each country. Mr. Adams did what he could; he sent the suggestions home to his Government; and all that he (Mr. Forster) found further in our blue-book respecting it was a despatch of Earl Russell to Lord Lyons, of 29th February. In that document he said, Mr. Adams intimated that, while the United States Government was ready to listen to any proposition on the subject, they did not see how their law could be improved. It was quite true Mr. Adams had said, the Government of the

  491
  United States thought their law effective, experience having shown it to be so. He (Mr. Forster) believed it was admitted fey the Law Officers of the Crown that the American law was stronger than ours, especially upon the point where ours had failed; but it was proved by papers which had been laid before the American Congress, that the matter had gone a little further than appeared in our own blue-book. The following was a letter of Mr. Adams to Earl Russell, dated September 16, 1863:—
  "It will doubtless be remembered that the proposition made by you, which I had the honour of being the medium of conveying to my Government, to agree upon some forms of amendment of the existing statutes of the two countries, in order to make them more effective, was entertained by the latter not from any want of confidence in the ability to enforce the existing statute, but from a desire to co-operate with what then appeared to be the wish of Her Majesty's Ministers. But upon my communicating this reply to your Lordship, and inviting the discussion of the proposition, you then informed me that it had been decided not to proceed any further in this direction, as it was the opinion of the Cabinet, sustained by the authority of the Lord Chancellor, that the law was fully effective in its present state."
  Was the Attorney General or the Solicitor General prepared to say, after the experience they had, that "the law was fully effective in its present state?" The following was the reply of Earl Russell to Mr. Adams, which had not been published, and which was dated September 25,1863:
  "I deem it incumbent on me, on behalf of Her Majesty's Government, frankly to state to you that Her Majesty's Government will not be induced to propose to Parliament any new laws which they may not, for reasons of their own, think proper to be adopted,"
  He (Mr. Forster) took it for granted that they were all agreed that no law should be proposed to the House except from an English point of view and on consideration of English interests; but he was surprised that Her Majesty's Government had not considered how terribly such a state of things as the present would react upon the future interests of this country. Reasons of their own should have induced the Government to put this great question of International Law upon a more satisfactory footing. They should have taken the opportunity to obtain from America and France, the great protectors of neutral rights, such an International Law as would make it impossible for this country in future to be subjected to what America was now suffering from them. Let the
  492
  House consider what would be their position if they were to experience the same treatment from a foreign country that America had received at their hands. He would not appeal to the case of America herself, because some people might say that whatever principles of International Law we might agree to, America would not abide by them. This he did not believe to be true, and he thought it might be shown to be untrue by past examples. It was impossible, at all events, to charge the Government of America with any unfair conduct in letting their subjects prey upon English commerce. Let them recollect the case of the Maury. The only other case which had been referred to was that of a vessel which it was said had been fitted out to prey upon British commerce during the war with Russia, but that vessel was not armed for such a purpose, and left America after the fall of Sebastopol. It did not appear that any representation had been made anywhere by the British Government that she was ever used for belligerent purposes, and there were affidavits to prove that she had not been so used. On the other hand, they had this fact, that when some subjects of America did engage in unjustifiable proceedings in connection with the Canadian, rebellion, the Government of America brought in a most stringent law to put an end to them. Therefore the assertion, that the American Government would not keep any engagement with them in future was not justified by the past. Let them not suppose that the precedent they were then setting as a neutral would not be used against us by every neutral Power in the future whenever we might be at war. Take the case of a possible war with Germany. Nobody would more deeply deprecate such a war as that than himself, or look upon it with greater horror; but to judge from the language of some of the newspapers, and from some speeches, there were persons who looked upon such a war without any particular feeling of horror. Supposing such a war should unfortunately arise, what would be our feelings if, when by our overwhelming naval force we fancied that we had made every German port safe, one vessel should steal out of Marseilles and another out of Brest, and that, meeting on the coast of Italy, one of them, shipping a crew and armament from the other, should be converted into a cruiser to sail off and destroy British merchantmen in the Mediterranean

  493
  or wherever she could find them? Should we allow France for a moment to do that? Certainly not, if we dared to prevent her; and with our usual pluck we probably should dare, unless the war were a struggle for our very existence—such a death-struggle in fact as the Americans were then engaged in. That precedent, if we allowed it to be established, meant for us a second war whenever we had a war on our hands, unless we were fighting for our existence, and did not dare to undertake another war. "What a wretched navy," it was said, "the Americans must have not to put these two or three cruisers down!" But it was a comparatively easy matter to carry on operations of this kind. All that a ship of that character had to do was to attack vessels which could not resist her, and run away from those which could. There was not the slightest occasion for them ever to fight a battle. If this country were at war, and if temptations were held out to foreign shipowners, there could be no doubt that, considering the large extent of English cargoes, there would, instead of three or four, be more than thirty ships engaged in preying upon their commerce. It would be a very cheap game to carry on. The persons engaged in it, if they were taken, were only prisoners of war; if they were not taken they made their fortunes. Was it to such risks that they would wish to expose British trade? Our merchants at first were disposed to triumph in the fact that the carrying trade of the United States was being transferred to them, but it was clear now that they had found out that present gain would not be balanced by the probable future loss. In a well known letter, addressed by Mr. Edge to Earl Russell, he stated that the effect up to that time had been that 148 American vessels had been, taken, and two millions and a half of property destroyed; and that was only a portion of the injury which had been done to American commerce, for the premium of insurance had been raised from 5 to 10 per cent, and the American carrying trade had been transferred to other nations, principally to this country. There could not be a stronger illustration of the damage which had been done to the American trade by these cruisers than the fact that, so completely was the American flag driven from the ocean, the Georgia on her second cruise did not meet a single American vessel in six weeks, though she saw no less than, seventy vessels in a very few days.
  494
  If we did not take care to settle the International Law before a war began, our merchants would be obliged to transfer their ships to foreign flags. Two other results would follow. First, a number of their sailors would be thrown out of employment, and the sources of their navy would be dried up, because their sailors, after a time, would take service in foreign ships. He thought the Ministry should have considered, that it was no question of sympathy with either North or South. It was no question of submitting to the dictation of a Foreign Power. If they interfered, they would be only manifestly doing what was demanded for the protection of British interests. At the meeting of Parliament the Government should have come forward and said, that if the law was effective, it was most difficult to carry it into operation; and that an opportunity was afforded them which they might never have again, of establishing their position for the future. He sincerely regretted that the Government had not discerned how excellent an opportunity had been afforded for that purpose. The question put by the hon. Gentleman opposite was, whether these particular ships, which had notoriously eluded our neutrality, should be admitted into our ports and receive the same hospitality as the ships of any other belligerent. The Attorney General had turned that into a question, whether the whole navy of the Confederates should he excluded from our ports because one of them had broken our neutrality. The and learned Gentleman asked if they hon. would, because men might have been enlisted in Ireland by the agents of the United States, therefore exclude the Federal ships from British harbours? But the cases were not similar at all. If they found that agents of the United States Government were enlisting men in Ireland, they should express their disapproval of it, and say that such agents should never tread on British ground again. But while they did that they might very fairly say also that vessels which left our ports in breach, of our neutrality should not be allowed to return to them. Surely the Attorney General did not mean to contend that in our representations to other nations we were obliged to be armed with the same proof as we should require in the case of one of our own people who had committed an offence against the law. Were there not sufficient grounds for saying, that we ought not to be required to extend to the

  495
  vessels in question the same degree of hospitality which we would gladly afford to ships which had not broken our neutrality? Then came the point as to what course our interest called upon us to take in the matter; and was it not, he would ask, clearly our interest to prevent the invasion by neutrals of the rights of belligerents, by taking those steps which he understood the hon. and learned Gentleman to admit it was in our power to adopt? If, then, it was only a question of discretion, he would ask the hon. and learned Gentleman and the Cabinet to consider English interests; and also to consider the enormous advantage they would enjoy in future from now adopting a course based upon the true principles of International Law. He wished to add a word with respect to International Law. He did not profess to be able to define what that law was according to precedents; but even a layman might be permitted to state his views in reference to it as based upon the principles of common sense; and what he understood its great object to be, as operating between belligerents and neutrals, was, that there should be such an arrangement between nations, that an individual in a country should not be allowed by the sovereign power of that country to carry on war with other States without the leave of the Government. There was, he maintained, the greatest possible difference between selling munitions of war to either of the parties in a contest and the sending out armed ships from our ports; for in the one case a neutral country was made the basis of hostilities, whereas in the other it was not. He had no wish to enter into the question, whether the Federals had received from us a larger quantity of the munitions of war than the Confederates, though that was a point more open to doubt than some hon. Gentlemen opposite seemed to suppose; though, of course, the Federals had received them more easily than the Confederates from the fact that the Confederates had no navy. That was their weakness, it was true; but in war weakness was a fault, and we might very well say to both belligerents when either complained of our furnishing the other with munitions of war, "It is no fault of ours if you do not stop them, and prevent them from being carried into hostile ports?" When, however, it came to be a question of armed ships leaving our own ports, the matter assumed
  496
  a different aspect, because the only way in which a belligerent could stop them was not by blockading the ports of another belligerent, but the ports of the neutral Power from which they sailed. Let him, however, suppose that the port of Liverpool was blockaded by the United States navy for the purpose of preventing these vessels from leaving it, could any one imagine that we could remain at peace with America? Such, then, being the position of the case, it was evident that if the Government could succeed in obtaining such concessions as he had indicated, and if neutrals were prevented from allowing their subjects to carry on war, they would not only be promoting our interests, but advancing the interests of civilization. He trusted, therefore, that the discussion raised by the right hon. Gentleman opposite, with an authority which scarcely any other Member of that House could command, backed as he was by the strongest possible memorial from the shipowners of Liverpool, would impress upon the Government the necessity of not allowing the opinions which had been expressed to pass by without endeavouring to place us in a better position than that in which we seemed to stand in the event of our unfortunately becoming belligerents ourselves.
  MR. COBDEN: I will only occupy the attention of the House for a very few minutes. I wish to say a word or two in reference to what has fallen from the Attorney General. Two questions have been brought under our notice by the statement of the hon. Gentleman who introduced this subject. The suggestions which he makes are, that we should alter our Foreign Enlistment Act, and that we should, in the exercise of the powers which it is conceded we possess, prevent vessels of the description referred to from entering our ports. With respect to altering our laws, the Attorney General has entered into a long argument to show that the law as it stands is effective for the purpose of preventing a breach of our neutrality, but I cannot imagine a more cruel joke than the hon. and learned Gentleman's speech must appear when it comes to be read at Washington. What is the fact? You have been carrying on hostilities from these shores against the people of the United States, and have been inflicting an amount of damage on that country greater than would be produced by many ordinary wars. It is estimated that the loss sustained by the

  497
  capture and burning of American vessels has been about 15,000,000 dols., or nearly £3,000,000 sterling. But that is a small part of the injury which has been inflicted on the American marine. We have rendered the rest of her vast mercantile property for the present valueless. Under the system of free trade, by which the commerce of the world is now so largely carried on, if you raise the rate of insurance on the flag of any maritime Power, you throw the trade into the hands of its competitors, because it is no longer profitable for merchants or manufacturers to employ ships to carry freights when those vessels become liable to war risks. I have here one or two facts which I should like to lay before the hon. and learned Gentleman, in order to show the way in which this has been operating. When he has heard them he will see what a cruel satire it is to say that our laws have been found sufficient to enforce our neutrality. I hold in my hand an account of the foreign trade of New York for the quarter ending June 30, 1860, and also for the quarter ending June 30, 1863, which is the last date up to which a comparison is made. I find that the total amount of the foreign trade of New York for the first mentioned period was 92,000,000 dols., of which 62,000,000 dols. were carried in American bottoms and 30,000,000 dols. in foreign. This state of things rapidly changed as the war continued, for it appears that for the quarter ending June 30, 1863, the total amount of the foreign trade of New York was 88,000,000 dols., of which amount 23,000,000 dols. were carried in American vessels and 65,000,000 dols. in foreign, the change brought about being that while in 1860 two-thirds of the commerce of New York was carried on in American bottoms, in 1863 three-fourths was carried on in foreign bottoms. You see, therefore, what a complete revolution must have taken place in the value of American shipping; and what has been the consequence? That a very large transfer has been made of American shipping to English owners, because the proprietors no longer found it profitable to carry on their business. A document has been laid on the table which gives us some important information on this subject. I refer to an account of the number and tonnage of United States vessels which have been registered in the United Kingdom and in the ports of British North America between the years 1858 and 1863, both in-
  498
  clusive. It shows that the transfer of United States shipping to English capitalists in each of the years comprised in that period was as follows: —

  In

  1858

  vessels

  33

  tonnage

  12,684

  In

  1859

  vessels

  49

  tonnage

  21,308

  In

  1860

  vessels

  41

  tonnage

  13,638

  In

  1861

  vessels

  126

  tonnage

  71,673

  In

  1862

  vessels

  135

  tonnage

  64,578

  In

  1863

  vessels

  348

  tonnage

  252,579

  I am told that this operation is now going on as fast as ever, Now, I hold this to be the most serious aspect of the question of our relations with America. I care very little about what newspapers may write or orators may utter on one side or the other. We may balance off an inflammatory speech from an hon. Member here against a similar speech made in the Congress at Washington. We may pair off a leading article published in New York against one published in London; but little consequence, I suspect, would be attached to either. The two countries, I hope, would discount these incendiary articles or these incendiary harangues at their proper value. But what I do fear in the relations between these two nations of the same race is the heaping up of a gigantic material grievance such as, we are now accumulating by the transactions connected with these cruisers; because there is a vast amount of individual suffering, personal wrong, and personal rancour arising out of this matter, and that in a country where popular feeling rules in public affairs. I am not sure that any legislation can meet this question. I candidly confess I do not think that if you were now to pass a law to alter your Foreign Enlistment Act you would materially change the aspect of this matter. You have already done your worst towards the American mercantile marine. What with the high rate of insurance, what with these captures, and what with the rapid transfer of tonnage to British capitalists, you have virtually made valueless that vast property. Why, if you had gone and helped the Confederates by bombarding all the accessible seaport towns of America, a few lives might have been lost which, as it is, have not been sacrificed, but you could hardly have done more injury in the way of destroying property than you have done by these few cruisers. Well, I turn to another point that has been opportunely raised by the hon. Gentleman—I mean as to the practicability of refusing hospitality to these ships. I re-

  499
  gard that as a very important question. I alluded to it twelve months ago in this House, and I still think that that is a step which the Government might take with advantage to our future relations with America. But when I hear what the hon. and learned Gentleman says in opposition to that view, I confess I am perplexed beyond measure by his argument. He made a very long and elaborate statement to show that we were not entitled to refuse hospitality to these ships. He admitted, indeed, that we had the right to do it, but he contended against the expediency of our exercising that right. Now, this is a question for the Government, and not for the Legislature; and therefore I wish to impress its importance on the Government. The hon. and learned Gentleman wound up by saying he thought they had better wait until they saw whether the House of Commons was quite prepared to support them in any alteration of our law. I will only say it struck me when I heard that we clearly had not a Washington at the head of affairs, because that certainly was not the way in which Washington earned the tribute of our applause for the course that he took. The Government admit through their legal adviser that they have the power, if they choose to exercise it, to prevent these vessels from entering our harbours, but the hon. and learned Gentleman doubts the expediency of exercising it, and his reason is that he thinks we have not clear proof of guilt. This brings me to a striking piece of inconsistency on the part of the hon. and learned Gentleman. He begins with administering a solemn exhortation, and something like a solemn reproof, to English shipbuilders, for infringing our neutrality laws and disregarding the Queen's proclamation by building these ships. Well, but if they are violating our neutrality and disregarding the Queen's proclamation, it must have been because they built these vessels for a belligerent to be employed against some Power with which we are at peace. The hon. and learned Gentleman assumes that these individuals are guilty of these acts. He knows they have been guilty of these acts; he knows that these three vessels in particular, and the Alabama more especially, have been built for the Confederate Government, and employed solely for that Government, and yet he doubts the expediency of stopping them from entering our ports. He speaks as
  500
  though we were asking that he should send out ships of war to destroy these vessels without trial. He says there must be legal proof; but it does not require legal proof to warrant you in telling a Government, "You have got these vessels clandestinely; you got them by the infringement of our neutrality code, or, at least, we suspect you, upon fair grounds, of doing so; and, unless you prove that they came legitimately into your hands we must refuse them the hospitality of our ports." Why, how do you act in private life? You hear charges and reports compromising the honour of your acquaintance or friend. You may have a moral conviction in your mind that that individual's honour is compromised, but you may not have legal proof of it, and still you may be quite justified in saying to him, "Until you clear up these charges, which on the face of them criminate you, I must refuse you the hospitality of my house." I hold that you have the right to say the same thing in regard to these cruisers. But what was the course of the Government in the case of the Alabama? They told Mr. Adams, the American Minister, that they should give orders to stop the Alabama, either at Queenstown or at Nassau. Therefore, the principle was recognized in the case of that vessel that you had a right to stop her when she reached your jurisdiction. I say, therefore, in the same way, prevent their entering your harbours until they give an account of themselves, to show how they became possessed of that vessel. This has a most important bearing, and one so apparent that it must be plain to the apprehensions of every hon. Gentleman who hears it. If the people of the United States are to be told that not only do individuals here fit out cruisers to destroy their commerce, but that our Government will allow these cruisers themselves to enter our harbours, and there to be equipped— civilly equipped I mean—and victualled, see in what a predicament you place yourselves towards that country, in case you are ever again engaged in war. Recollect her geographical position. She has one sea coast in the Atlantic and another in the Pacific, and her Pacific coast is within about a fortnight's steaming of your China trade. Let any man read the shipping list at Shanghai. It is almost like reading the Liverpool shipping list. Suppose, then, you were at war with any other Power, and you had laid down this doctrine for

  501
  other countries to imitate. Why, let the American Government be as true and as loyal to its principle of neutrality as it has been, can you doubt, if American nature is human nature, if American nature is English nature, that out of their numerous and almost inaccessible creeks and corners there will not be persons to send forth these fleet steamers to prey on your commerce? Why, many Americans will think it an act of absolute patriotism to do this. They will say, "We have lost our mercantile marine through your doing this, and by doing the same towards you we shall recover it again, and you will be placed in the same position as we were. You will have a high rate of insurance, you will be obliged to sell your ships; you had the profit before, now we shall have it, for the game is one that two can play at." Consider the disadvantage you will experience under those circumstances. We understood the importance of this at the commencement of the Crimean war. In April, 1854, when war was declared with Russia, the British and French Governments sent a joint note to the American Government, in which we asked them, as an act of friendly reciprocity towards us, to give orders that no privateers bearing the Russian flag should be allowed to be fitted out, or victualled, or equipped in American ports. Recollect that the words "equipped" and "victualled" were contained in the request which we addressed to the American Government. And this leads me to make a remark with reference to a most important point— I mean as to the distinction drawn by the hon. and learned Gentleman between a Government ship of war carrying a commission and a privateer. That is a question of the utmost importance to us. We have been in a Pool's Paradise for the last seven years. We have believed that the Conference of Paris achieved a great work in the interest of civilization—that it abolished privateering. Now we find that that was nothing but a stupendous hoax. For what is the Florida? What is the Alabama? What is the Georgia? Why, they are not privateers at all. I remember that the hon. Member for Liverpool who sits opposite—I wish to distinguish him from his Colleague—I remember that he made a speech lately at Liverpool, in which he said that if the Americans had only joined in the declaration of Paris against privateering they would not have been placed in their present predicament;
  502
  and the hon. Gentleman led his hearers, the shipowners of that port, to believe that if we got into a war we could not be retaliated upon in the same way as the Americans were, because we were under that safeguard which had for ever abolished privateering. Well, let us take the case of the Florida as an example, and look at her history for a moment. She was off the coast of Ireland, and went across to Brest. On her way thither she burnt an. American merchant ship, and therefore went into Brest red-handed. At Brest she claimed to be allowed to civilly equip and victual. The Opinion Nationals immediately put forth a leading article, denouncing the Florida as being what the French call a corsaire, and what we term a privateer. Thereupon the commander of the Florida wrote a letter to the Paris newspapers, declaring that M. le Redacteur was under a great delusion in supposing that his ship was a privateer, and stating that she bore a regular commission of the Confederate Government, and that he and all his officers were regularly commissioned officers; that, in fact, the Florida was a regular ship of war. On the publication of that letter, Mr. Dayton, the American Minister at Paris, took the affair in hand, and in the despatches on our table between Mr. Seward and his representatives abroad we have the whole correspondence that took place between Mr. Dayton and the French Government. Mr. Dayton called the attention of M. Drouyn de Lhuys to the circular addressed to the American Government in 1854, at the breaking out of the Crimean war, and told him in effect, "You and England jointly requested us not to allow any privateer to equip or victual in our ports, but here is a vessel that is either a privateer or nothing; she makes no war on armed vessels; she goes about burning and destroying merchant ships, and she does not profess to do anything else, because she is neither armed nor manned in a way to act I as a regular ship of war." M. Drouyn de Lhuys and the English Government appear both to have come to the same conclusion that the Florida, as well as the Alabama and the Georgia, is a regular ship of war; but Mr. Dayton, in communicating with his own Government, fairly stigmatized the Declaration of Paris as "mere moonshine," and Mr. Seward in his reply endorsed his language, I mention this to show that it will not save us, in case we are engaged in war, from having

  503
  reprisals practised upon us that we have joined in the Declaration of Paris, and I am glad that upon this point the hon. Member for Liverpool has not succeeded in misleading his constituents, because they appear to take a very sound and farseeing view of the question. I am only sorry, indeed, that two years ago, our shipowners did not rise en masse, and compel the Government of this manufacturing and mercantile country to put our laws and regulations in harmony with the present state of our interests and relations; for I hold we are not here to stand up like lawyers and quote pedantically from the Reports of 1810 and 1812. We are living in a progressive age, and in a most progressive country, and let me tell the Government that we have now five times as much at stake as we had at the beginning of the century. Our exports and imports are fivefold what they were at the time when those authorities spoke whom the Attorney General has cited, and I maintain, that it is in the power of any country, but especially in the power of great countries, to lay down maxims and establish precedents which themselves become International Law. We have, unhappily, lost a precious opportunity of putting ourselves in a better position for the future, if ever we intend to go to war again. Nor is it merely in time of war that we shall feel the effects of the existing state of things. Do you suppose that foreign Governments do not observe what is going on, and do not fully appreciate our altered circumstances? I might apply that observation to other matters, and ask why we scatter our forces all over the world and then think we are as safe and powerful at home as if we had those forces under our wing. But, confining myself to the question of belligerent rights, I say that foreign Governments will take into account the danger we must incur in case of war, and will find in it a motive for our remaining at peace. Look at what happened last autumn. We held out what was supposed to be a threat, that, in conjunction with France, we should go to war with Russia on the subject of Poland. What did Russia do? She sent her fleet immediately to America, and, knowing the astute longheaded men who rule in St. Petersburg, does anybody doubt what the motive was? The Russian Government reasoned thus:—"If England and France are going to attack us again, we will take care not to have our fleets
  504
  blockaded in Cronstadt and Sebastopol as they were during the Crimean war, but to be in a position to carry on reprisals, and particularly we will carry on operations against the commerce of England, in the same way as the Confederates are carrying on war against the commerce of the United States." Therefore, they sent their fleet, and, what is still more important, they sent their crews to America, no doubt with the intention of putting those crews into the swiftest vessels that could be obtained both on the Atlantic and on the Pacific side, in order that they might be employed against our commerce. Take the case of Germany. Recently the German newspapers have often pointed to the vulnerability of England, in consequence of the state of the law as established by ourselves in the case of these cruisers. We have, in truth, set a most perilous example, the disadvantageous effects of which, I believe, will be felt in our Foreign Office in negotiations with Brazil or the weakest Power we could have transactions with. Such has been the result of building three or four swift sailing vessels! Are we to be told that England is so much superior to America in mechanics that she can build ships which America cannot? Read the Report laid on the table by Mr. Whitworth when, he went to America ten years ago to inquire into its mechanical resources. Nobody who knows the aptitude of the American people for mechanical discoveries will lay claim to any superiority on our part. Do you want an Alabama, a ship that was built neither for war nor for trade—a vessel that can run away from anything or catch anything? America can produce any number of such vessels. When I went first to America, nearly thirty years ago, they were running steamers on their rivers at the rate of eighteen miles an hour, a thing unheard of elsewhere. The Americans have never done much in the way of ocean steamers; their speciality is on their rivers and lakes, where we find the swiftest vessels in the world. But is it supposed that because we have more ships of war, therefore we are sure, in case of war, to find their cruisers? Perhaps nothing is more difficult, not to say impossible, than to find a ship on the ocean after she has once got out of sight. Nelson himself passed many months trying to find a fleet of 500 sail going from France to Egypt. You may find a vessel in a harbour, just as Nelson found the French fleet at the Nile; but even, if you should find an Ame-

  505
  rican cruiser in a harbour, by your own rules you must allow her to escape, because you say she must have a start of twenty-four hours. It appears to me, on the whole, that the only thing remaining that you can do to conciliate the American people under the cruel losses they have undergone at your hand is to say that henceforth you will deny hospitality to vessels that have been built in your ports, that have clandestinely left your ports, that have been manned and armed from your ports, because you are convinced that to allow such ships to come back here after committing havoc upon a friendly nation would be not only to fail in your duty towards others, but to pursue the course most likely to injure yourselves and endanger your own best interests in the future.
  LORD ROBERT CECIL: The present hour and the present state of the House, do not invite discussion, but the speech we have just heard contained a fallacy which I cannot allow to pass without notice. The hon. Member for Rochdale has drawn a powerful picture of the evils to which England will be exposed in any war in which she may be engaged hereafter. I do not think he has exaggerated those evils, for I am afraid that, in the event of war, we must reckon upon seeing our mercantile marine harassed on the ocean by swarms of hostile privateers. But the point which the hon. Member seems to have overlooked, is the impossibility of our avoiding the evils in store for us, by any action we could take now. If by sending the Alabama or the Georgia away we could insure ourselves against the risks which the hon. Member has so eloquently painted, I should at once admit that there was great cogency in his arguments; but I cannot conceive how anybody can imagine that, by refusing hospitality to a Confederate ship, we could add one iota to the safety of our mercantile marine in any future war. You say that you desire to set the Americans a good example. Do you mean seriously to tell me that when hostile passions are aroused, when men are driven by their feelings, or still more by what they consider an overwhelming interest, towards a particular line of conduct, they will care about imitating your example? Do you mean to say that the Americans who, whatever have been their merits or demerits, have never been very particular as to how they contend with other nations, who certainly were not very
  506
  particular in their dealings with us in Canada—do you mean to say that they will care two straws whether we did or did not, at some previous period, act in a manner which they deemed hostile to themselves? But I will remove the question from this American dispute. Look at what has happened between other nations. Are France and Russia any the less likely to unite now, because they hated each other bitterly in 1853 and 1854? Are England and Denmark who hated each other bitterly during the great war, on that account less sympathetic or friendly now? Nations in selecting their policy, are not affected by events which may have taken place live, ten, or fifteen years before. Gratitude or indignation may last in the breasts of individuals for so long a period, though even that is a rare phenomenon; but I am quite sure that you can find in the history of the world no instance in which those feelings have endured so long in the breasts of nations. To go from example to precedent. We have heard a great deal about precedent from both the hon. Member for Bradford and the hon. Member for Rochdale. They say that we ought to set up a precedent which shall change International Law. I confess that sounds to me very strange language. We heard from the Attorney General, stated with the greatest eloquence and clearness, what International Law is. You say to us, "Don't keep to that, don't keep International Law as it is, but by the process of breaking it, make it something else, and your reward for so breaking it shall be that other nations, instead of breaking it, will keep it, and keep it in the way which will be advantageous to you in future wars." I confess that that is a process which I do not think that other nations are very likely to go through. At all events, if they follow our example in nothing else, they will follow our example in the convenient plan of amending International Law by the process of breaking it. But there is something more to be said. You profess neutrality, and I presume that you intend that neutrality to be honest. I presume that even the hon. Member for Birmingham (Mr. Bright), strongly as he feels upon the subject, will not recommend us to depart from strict neutrality. But can there be a greater breach of neutrality than that you should break International Law on the one side and not on the other—that you should alter International Law by so breaking it,

  507
  and that entirely in favour of one belligerent? And what adds to the peculiar baseness of such a proceeding is, that you are asked to take this course, not because you believe that one side is right and the other wrong, but solely that it may give you an advantage in some future war. I confess that such a mode of dealing with International Law appears to me more dishonest and more immoral than anything I ever before heard proposed in this House. The hon. Member for Rochdale told us a great deal about the bitter feelings of the inhabitants of the Federal States at the losses they have endured. He counted up those losses, and asked us to believe, as we well could, that a race come of the same stock as ourselves would be operated upon more strongly by the bitterness of feeling occasioned by these losses than by any other motive. I thoroughly believe it. I dare say that for many years those nations will feel bitterness towards the nation through whose instrumentality they believe that they have been inflicted. But have there been losses only on one side? Has there been suffering only on one side? And has British aid been given only to one side? I have in my hand a paper which tells a different story, and to the tale which it tells I invite the attention of the House. In the course of the year 1862 there were exported to the Federal States rifles and muskets of the value of £546,000, besides 11,947,000, or in round numbers 12,000,000, percussion caps. What the Americans have done with all those caps I cannot imagine. I believe that, according to the most recent authority, they have killed 200,000 Confederates. That allows sixty shots for each man killed, which undoubtedly is not very good practice. [Lord ROBERT MONTAGU: Yes, it is.] My noble Friend says that it is. I trust that in any war in which we may be engaged he will wield his weapon with more effect. I cannot pass over the fact which has been stated in this House, and is well known, that the mercantile house which has been mainly instrumental in conveying this enormous assistance to the Federals, and effecting this fearful injury upon the Confederates, is the house of Baring and Co. Now, I want you to consider the feelings with which the Confederates regard these enormous reinforcements, which have been conveyed by the English people through the hands of Messrs. Baring and Co., in violation of Her Majesty's proclamation of
  508
  neutrality. [Mr. COBDEN: Not in violation of the law.] The Attorney General is not here to inform us as to the law, and I will adhere to my statement until it is contradicted by some more competent authority. Whether contrary to law or not, it is an enormous assistance conveyed through the house of Messrs. Baring and Co. by the English people to the Federals. You have been considering the feelings of the Federals. Do you suppose the Confederates have no feelings? Do you suppose they do not feel for their rich country desolated, for the enormous injury which has been inflicted upon their industry, for their towns bombarded, for their population slaughtered, and for the fearful trials to which every class of their people have been exposed; and do you suppose that when they learn that all this havoc has been committed through the instrumentality of munitions of war conveyed by English merchants, the bitterness on one side will not be as great as that on the other? If our neutrality is honest, we must regard the bitterness on one side as much as that of the other. I am sure that, considering what in the future are likely to be the opportunities of greatness offered to the two divisions into which the American republic is fast dividing, that we shall have as much cause for regret if we permanently alienate from England the inhabitants of that vast country which lies to the south of the Potomac as we shall have if we alienate those who inhabit the smaller country which lies to the north of that river. We cannot give too much praise to the very learned and moderate speech of the Attorney General. It seemed to me to give an exhaustive and complete statement of the law, comprehensible by the least instructed intellect; and I hope that it will be accepted as an official reply to many fallacies upon this subject which have been current in this country. I will only express my regret that after that speech the hon. Member for Rochdale should have repeated the statement that it was proved that the Georgia came out in violation of our neutrality. Why, you have not even got a verdict. It will be time enough to talk about the law being broken when you have got any court of law to pronounce in your favour. The only court which pronounces in your favour is that which sits in your own brains. There is not a ghost of a justification for saying that the Georgia has broken our Foreign Enlistment Act. All the facts are

  509
  against you. It is probably well known to the hon. Member for Rochdale, that it is quite as much within the International Law to sell ships of war to another nation as it is to sell any munitions of war. There seems, therefore, to be no ground for the statement that the Georgia has invaded our ports in defiance of our neutrality, and we should ourselves be guilty of a clear breach of neutrality if we shaped our policy on an assumption which cannot be proved either in law or in fact.
  MR. SHAW LEFEVREsaid, that the noble Lord, in admitting the novelty in war of such cases as the Georgia, and the Alabama, had conceded the very basis of the argument of the hon. Member for Huntingdon. It was to prevent such cases becoming a recognized usage of war for the future that he ventured to urge upon the House and the Government the importance of all that we now could do to remedy the evil effects of them, and to prevent their recurrence. He had listened with great regret to the speech of the hon. and learned Attorney General, and especially to his statement that he was not prepared to recommend Her Majesty's Government to take either of the courses suggested by the hon. Member for Huntingdon. Probably, if the hon. and learned Gentleman had paid more attention to the history of America and less to their law cases, he would have come to a different conclusion. When in 1793 we remonstrated with the American Government against the fitting out of privateers in their ports, they did not say that they had no municipal law to meet the case, and were not bound by International Law, but at once passed an Act to meet our complaints. The Act of 1794 was for a time sufficient for its purpose. He could not find that it was evaded by a single privateer issuing from the ports of America to prey upon British commerce during the long course of the French war. Shortly after the close of that war, however, the Spanish and Portuguese colonies in South America revolted from their parent countries. Great sympathy was felt in the United States for the independence of these colonies, and their lawyers were not long in discovering a flaw in the Foreign Enlistment Act, just as lawyers had done in ours, which was almost identical. In evasion of the law, privateers were despatched from American ports. The course adopted was much the same as that taken by those who, in our own day, fitted out the Alabama, Georgia, and Florida, The vessels
  510
  were chartered as traders, and received guns and ammunition under the disguise of cargoes of merchandise. When they got out to sea they hoisted their guns out of their holds, mounted them on deck, and displayed the flag of one of the South American Republics. The American Government, he was bound to say, did all they could to enforce the law against these cruisers. There were numerous cases in which they were seized and condemned, and there were also cases of prosecution for infringement of the Foreign Enlistment Act. Those measures, however, were not sufficient to repress the evil. Spain and Portugal both remonstrated with the United States for allowing cruisers to be fitted out in their ports; and the complaints which were made bore a striking resemblance to some of those which the Federal Government had lately addressed to us. The Portuguese Government pointed out that the fault was entirely in the insufficient state of the existing law, and urged its amendment. Similar representations were made by the Spanish Minister; and even this country and France joined in the remonstrances. What was the reply of the United States? They did not say that they had a municipal law, and that no international obligation required them to go beyond it. On the contrary, the President immediately sent a message to Congress, in which, after pointing out the evasions of their law, he said—
  "It is of the highest importance to our national character, and indispensable to the morality of our citizens, that all violations of our neutrality should be prevented. No door should be left open for the evasion of our laws; no opportunity afforded to any who may be disposed to take advantage of it to compromise the interest and the honour of the nation. It is submitted, therefore, to the consideration of Congress, whether it may not be advisable to revise the laws with a view to this desirable result."
  He thought this message was most honourable to American statesmanship, and he should like to see Her Majesty's Government in the present juncture adopt the same policy as the Government of the United States in 1817. In accordance with the President's Message an Act of Congress was proposed, containing two clauses not in the original Act, and, he might observe, wanting to our statute, the one giving collectors of Customs authority to detain vessels under suspicion of being intended for hostilities till inquiry should be made, the other giving the State officers power to exact bonds from vessels sus-

  511
  pected, that they would not he used hostilely against an ally of the States. There was then, it should be remembered, quite as strong a sympathy in the United States for the South American colonies as prevailed among hon. Gentlemen opposite for the Southern States of North America; and, of course, there was strong opposition to the proposed Act during its progress through Congress. It was said that it had been brought forward under pressure from foreign Powers, and that traders had a right to sell ships if they chose. The Government replied that they had duties to perform, not to one nation, but to all; that they had listened to the representations of foreign Powers only because they deemed them reasonable, and that traders must take care that in their mercantile dealings they did not do anything which was incompatible with the higher interests of the country. He did not hesitate to say that such cases as had occurred in this country could not have taken place under the law of the United States; and he held that our honour and our interest required that we should adopt the clauses which had been added to the original American Act. In so doing, we should, he thought, prevent the repetition of such unfortunate cases for the future. As regards those cases which had already occurred, he thought the least we could do was to prohibit absolutely such vessels from entrance to our ports. We had precedent for such course in the conduct of the American Government, in 1793, who, not content with passing their Foreign Enlistment Act at our instance, had also dismissed from their ports those vessels which had previously been fitted out in them. But there was yet an earlier precedent, arising out of the American war of Independence. Gibbon, in his well known memoir in justification of the war with Prance in 1779, told us that when privateers were fitted out in French ports for the service of the American Government, the British Government strongly protested against it, and offered France the alternative of checking the practice or going to war. France chose peace, and undertook to dismiss all the privateers from her ports at once. Therefore, there were two precedents directly in point, showing what ought to be done in regard to these vessels. It was said that there had been no judicial investigation in connection with the Southern cruisers, but that was because they escaped from this country before any
  512
  trial could be instituted. He did not suppose that any one could doubt that these vessels were built in violation of our neutrality, and he hoped the Government would entertain the proposals suggested by the hon. Member for Huntingdon.
  LORD ROBERT MONTAGUsaid, there could be no doubt either as to the bias of the hon. Member's sympathies or the source of his inspiration. Instead of availing himself of the authentic sources of information in this country he had evidently gone for facts to the American papers laid on the table of Congress, and for arguments to the debates in their chambers. The hon. Member for Rochdale had proved conclusively that the trade of the Northern States had been considerably diminished; but he had failed to show how we had been the cause of the destruction of their commerce. His speech was like a bridge without a keystone. His facts and premises were established, but his conclusion was illogical. The hon. Gentleman had entirely omitted to show how we were responsible for the injury which American commerce had sustained since the war began. "Yes, I did," he says; "you admitted the vessels of the Southern States into your ports, and these damaged the commerce of the Northern's. He (Lord Robert Montagu) had thought that the Southern States were not yet ripe for recognition. But the hon. Member had shown that they not only had held their ground against the North, but had actually destroyed their commerce; and that, too, in the face of a navy which had come victorious out of many a battle, and prided itself upon being the strongest in the world. Not only had the Southern States manufactured a navy, but they had beaten the Federal ships which had long ridden the sea in triumph, so that the latter were now fain to avoid the conflict. How were we to blame for that? Should we have done anything to prevent the South from sending their ships to sea, or have refused to them that hospitality which our neutrality bound us to concede equally to both sides? The hon. Member had also drawn a ease which he had said was analogous, of a friend who was suspected of an act derogatory to his honour, although nothing had actually been proved against him, and had said that in such a case we should refuse to have any more dealings with our friend until he had succeeded in clearing his character. So, he said, we

  513
  should act by the Southern States who were suspected of fitting out ships in this country. But the Attorney General had pointed out that as yet the Southern States were not recognized by us, and that, consequently, we had no legal channel for those communications which might otherwise have been addressed to them. The Federal Government had themselves prevented us from communicating with the South by blockading their ports, and had declined to permit a British man-of-war to proceed to one of the Southern ports for that purpose. The hon. Member said the Florida was a privateer, and had grounded his assertion upon the fact that she had not fought men-of-war, but preyed upon the trade of her enemy. This was a very mistaken definition of a privateer. A privateer was an armed merchant vessel, which, whenever opportunity offered, plundered enemy's property; but the Florida carried no cargo, and had actually proved her commission as a man-of-war. Neither did he think, as the hon. Member seemed to believe, that if England altered her law, Russia would refrain from sending privateers to sea to plunder English property in case of war with this country. For these reasons he could not concur with the otherwise eloquent speech of the hon. Member for Rochdale. He (Lord Robert Montagu) did not attribute the decline of trade, and the rise in freightage in America to any illegal action or violation of neutrality on our part; it was the inevitable result of a war which diverted the energy of the capital in other directions, and absorbed a great deal of the capital which would otherwise be employed in promoting commerce.
  MR. ALDERMAN ROSEsaid, he believed the country would endorse the definition of the law of neutrality as laid down by the Attorney General, and carried out by the Administration. He denied that the opinions of the hon. Members for Rochdale and Bradford were shared by the people at large. The hon. Member for Rochdale had given the House a list of the losses which had occurred to the United States navy, but he had not alluded to the other losses of that country — its loss of liberty, of credit, of everything which a country should hold dear. The South had, no doubt, the blot of slavery to contend against; but had the North had nothing to do with that? He contended that all the
  514
  evils of the slave trade were owing to the mode in which the Federal States had formerly dealt with it. The whole system of Government in the Northern States was false, rotten, and corrupt, while the South was making for themselves a great name and a glorious history. He believed the day was not distant when the Confederacy would be an independent nation recognized by the nations of Europe.
  Motion agreed to.
  House at rising to adjourn till Thursday next.

SUPPLT—THE MALT DUTY.

  RESOLUTION.
  Order for Committee read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."
  MR. MORRITTsaid, he had it at last in his power to bring before the House the Motion which had stood for such a length of time upon the paper. The delay had not by any means been owing to him —quite the contrary. What had caused the delay it was needless to inquire, but as far as he was concerned he thought he was only placed in a better position, and he did not regret what had occurred. There was one thing, however, which he did regret, and that was the extremely empty state of the House—
  Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members not being present,
  House adjourned at Nine o'clock, till Thursday next.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading— Naval Prize* (No. 87).
Second Reading — Fish Teinds (Scotland)* (No. 62).
Committee—Regius Professorship of Greek (Oxford) (No. 44), negatived; Under Secretaries Indemnity* (No. 77).
Report—Under Secretaries Indemnity* (No. 77); Common Law Procedure (Ireland) Act (1853) Amendment* (No. 51).
Third Reading—Registration of County Voters (Ireland)* (No. 50).
Royal Assent—Customs and Inland Revenue [27 & 28 Vict. c. 18];
Charitable Assurances Enrolments [27 & 28 Vict. c. 13];
Land Drainage (Provisional Orders) [27 & 28 Vict. c. 14];
High Court at Bombay [27 & 28 Vict. c. 16]*;
Vestry Cess Abolition (Ireland) [27 & 28 Vict.c. 17];

Court of Chancery (Despatch of Business) 27 & 28 Vict. c. 15
;
Promissory Notes and Bills of Exchange (Ireland) [27&28 Vict. c. 20];
Joint Stock Companies (Foreign Countries) [27 & 28 Vict. c. 19].

COUNTY COURTS ACT AMENDMENT BILL— [BILL 70]

  SECOND READING POSTPONED.
  LORD CHELMSFORDstated that he had within the last half hour had placed in his hands a copy of the Return containing the answers given by the County Court Judges to questions on the subject of imprisonment for debt; and he could not help thinking that Return ought to have been laid on the table before the Bill of his noble and learned Friend had been introduced. But as the information contained in this paper was of a most important character, their Lordships were certainly not in a condition to deal with the Bill until they had made themselves masters of this Return. He, therefore, appealed to his noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack to postpone the second reading of the Bill.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, he would most readily agree that the second reading of the Bill should be postponed till the first day after the Whitsuntide recess.
  Second Reading (which stands appointed for this Day) put off to Monday the 23rd Instant.

DENMARK AND GERMANY. WAR CONTRIBUTIONS ON JUTLAND.

  QUESTION.
  THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGH: My Lords, I rise to put to the noble Earl the Secretary for Foreign Affairs the Question I communicated to him yesterday, as to the understanding the Conference may have come to with respect to the collection of the War Contributions imposed by Prussia on Jutland. The excessive amount of these contributions and the extreme severity with which they have been collected—or attempted to be collected— have produced a universally painful impression, and have added greatly to the indignation that must always accompany the recollection of the bombardment of Sönderborg. I should do injustice to the noble Earl if I did not believe that he entirely participates in the general feeling on that subject. My Lords, we should very ill judge of the pressure of those contributions on Jutland if we did not take into consideration the condition and circumstances of that country. It is not a wealthy country; it is, on the contrary, a comparatively sterile country—it has no large towns—it has no manufactures—it has very
  438
  little of cereal produce. It is one great grazing ground, interrupted by sands and by water. The few articles sold in the towns are solely produced for the use of the agricultural population. The large proprietors commonly live on their own estates in the midst of their people; their houses are surrounded by buildings of immense extent, which are necessary to cover the stock during the severe winter, and the destruction of a farm in that country is like the destruction of a town in this. The ruin of one of the proprietors is the utter ruin of all those who depend upon him, for they have no others to go to for employment. It is a population that one would have supposed could not have excited a spirit of revenge and animosity on the part of any enemy. They are singularly simple and innocent. They can have very little knowledge of the long diplomatic discussions that have taken place between Germany and their own Government. They are not persons to attend to political discussions. This only they know—that the Germans have come at last, after long threatening, to attempt to take from their country two valuable provinces that have belonged to Denmark for 400 years; and with the spirit of a brave, loyal people they spring forward for its defence, and send their sons, little instructed in military arts, to suffer and die in the defence of their country. There they have obtained for themselves immortal honour by their perseverance and their submission to every hardship and privation of war. But, unfortunately for themselves, the people of Jutland are a free people. They possess the most popular form of electoral franchise. It is to their great credit that they have not abused it; but in the eyes of the despotic Powers of Germany that is a crime not to be forgiven. It is impossible to conceal from ourselves the fact— indeed, it is admitted by Herr von Bismark —- that this is a war against freedom carried on by Prussia and the other despotic Powers of Germany. Forgetting that they dominate in Venetia, and are masters of a large Polish population, they make this war in the name of nationality— they bring their might to bear against right, their strength against weakness; and, above all, they endeavour to overwhelm by their military strength all the resistance that can be brought against them by a thoroughly free people. My Lords, I say it is might against right. The war is alto-

  439
  gether on unjust war. The noble Earl himself admits that it is unjust, because the demands which were made by the allied Powers were conceded. But I go beyond that. I cannot understand how any right can grow out of a wrong, and the whole of these diplomatic transactions out of which this supposed right arises originated in this — that the German Powers being admitted into Holstein on the requisition of Denmark to restore order in that province which belongs to the German Confederation, and finding themselves in military possession of the country, took advantage of their presence to force Denmark to agree to conditions with regard to Schleswig, which is not German. My Lords, I cannot understand how any country can acquire a vested interest in the bad government of another; and yet it is this which the Germans pretend to have acquired by the diplomatic transactions of' 52, claiming a right to interfere in the administration of Schleswig, and to prevent the adoption of measures of reform in that province. It is therefore a war of thorough injustice. But, my Lords, Prussia has had other views in this war. She has desired to give a certain appearance of reputation to her army, and on that account men are to be shot at instead of targets. She has accordingly practised on the weak with the whole power of her artillery and musketry, and thousands of loyal subjects of the King of Denmark are
  "Butchered to make a German holiday."
  My Lords, I look with loathing on this war. Prussia should recollect that it was the sense of the contumely and wrong which she suffered at the hands of France which roused her spirit in 1813, and enabled her to redeem the character which had been acquired by her people fifty years before. The same sense of contumely and wrong will remain for ever in the minds of the Danish people. Prussia has created a force of 1,800,000 persons on her extreme flank, which will for ever hang upon her communications, and at all times will endanger her position when she is engaged in war. My Lords, the day will come—and it may not be distant—when Prussia may call on other Powers for help; but they will sympathize with those whom she is now oppressing, and she will be left in her difficulty unaided, unpitied, and despised. My Lords, I am unfortunately old enough to remember the great atrocity committed by Prussia in 1806, when she received at the hands of Napoleon Hanover, which he had not by
  440
  any international law any right to give her. I recollect the indignant language of Mr. Fox at that time, reprobating her conduct, which he described as combining all that was contemptible in servility with all that was odious in rapacity. Servile in the presence of Russia, rapacious in the attack upon Denmark, Prussia still maintains her bad pre-eminence. But, my Lords, it is not only through ambition—it is not only to teach her army to fight—it is for lucre that this war is waged; but I do trust that the Conference, acting in the spirit of justice, has looked into these transactions, and that In its determination with respect to these contributions imposed by Prussia it has recollected that, while war has its rights, humanity has its rights also. My Lords, I will now put to the noble Earl these Questions—namely, 1st, Whether it is understood by the Conference that war contributions imposed before the armistice was known and announced in Jutland can be collected during the suspension of arms; 2nd, Whether any war contribution imposed after the armistice was known, but before the suspension of arms commenced, namely, on the 12th, can be collected; and 3rd, Whether any new contributions can be imposed during the suspension of arms?
  EARL RUSSELL: My Lords, I feel it to be my duty not to make any remarks upon the eloquent speech which the noble Earl has just made. It is, I think, incumbent on me rather to endeavour to come to some understanding which may lead ultimately to peace. And in answering the Question of the noble Earl with respect to the present suspension of arms, I beg to say that I do not at all depart from the rule which I thought it my duty to lay down for myself on a previous occasion— namely, that, pending the Conference, I should not make explanations as to what takes place at its sittings. However, with regard to the suspension of arms, I thing there is fairly an exception. The Conference has agreed—and this should be an answer to the noble Earl's last question— the Conference has agreed that during the suspension of arms there shall not be levied by the allied troops in Jutland, or wherever else they occupy positions, any contributions of war, and that, on the contrary, those troops will pay for the articles they may require. The Conference did not lay down any rule with regard to contributions that were previously imposed; but in my view the spirit of the article would be that the allied troops would cease to levy any

  441
  contributions of war. That appears to be the fair spirit and meaning of the Conference. The Conference, anxious to stop the effusion of blood, and anxious to protect the people from these contributions of war, having decided on the main point, left the commanders of the naval and military forces engaged on each side to settle the details with one another. It seems to me that I am not authorized in saying more, But with respect to the first two questions, they have been decided by the Conference, I may, however, further mention, that having made representations to the Allied Governments with respect to the exaction of war contributions, on answer was given on the part of the Austrian commander, to the effect that it was the custom of all troops during war—including the English army—to levy military contributions, not only in kind, but in money, to defray the expenses to which they are put. Now, whatever may be the case with Continental armies, that, I believe, has not been the practice of the English army. During the Duke of Wellington's campaigns in the Peninsula the utmost care was taken to allow it, but all that the troops required was paid for; and the Austrian General is quite mistaken in supposing that the practice adopted in Jutland has any authority or precedent in the conduct of the British army.
  THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGH: I am exceedingly sorry to hear from the noble Earl that the Conference has not used the most extreme precision of language in prescribing the directions to be given respecting the collection of war contributions. It appears to me that there is nothing precise in their language, but that there is merely an understanding on the part of the noble Earl, that no new contributions are to be levied during the armistice.
  EARL RUSSELL: The agreement is not to levy contributions of war: it is not merely that no "new contributions" are to be levied.
  THE EARL OF ELLENBOROUGH: It so happens that the contribution of 650,000 thalers was imposed on the very day on which the Conference last sat—namely, the 9th; and it seems to me to have been imposed in fraud of the Conference, and with the knowledge that the Conference was to sit on that day, in order that it might be included under the category of contributions imposed before instead of after, the decisions of the Conference.

REGIUS PROFESSORSHIP OF GREEK (OXFORD) BILL— [No. 44.]

  COMMITTEE NEGATIVED.
  Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee, read.
  LORD LYTTELTON presented petitions from the Venerable Archdeacon Thorp, of Bristol, and the Rev. J. F. Mackarness, Prebendary of Exeter Cathedral, against the Bill, and praying for the severance of canonries from all University offices. The petition of Archdeacon Thorp prayed their Lordships to take into their early consideration the recommendation made by Bishop Monk in a letter to the effect, that "It would be a beneficial change to transfer the patronage of these canonries as proposed by the Government of Lord John Russell from the Chancellor to the Prime Minister;" and secondly, the expediency of providing for the severance, on the next avoidance, of canonries from headships of colleges and professorships not directly connected with instruction in religious learning in the two ancient Universities; and thirdly, the expediency of humbly recommending to Her Majesty to take into consideration the recommendation of the Cathedral Commissioners with a view to enacting such reforms in the cathedral bodies as shall be found expedient; and lastly, he humbly prays their Lordships' House not to consent to the said Bill for annexing permanently a cathedral canonry to the Greek Professorship of Oxford, nor to any other measure by which cathedral endowments may be diverted from the legitimate and still beneficial purposes of their foundation. The Rev. W. Mackarness in his petition prayed their Lordships "not to pass the said Bill, or at least so to modify it as to separate the proposed professional stipend from the office and function of a canon residentiary in any cathedral church." A learned and influential Commission had pronounced a similar opinion in three Reports, but he was sorry to say that, up to the present time, not the slightest attention had been paid to their recommendation. Not long ago, the present Government, in reply to a question, frankly confessed that they had not taken the trouble to think about the matter at all, and he must admit that no great public feeling existed to stir them into action. Under those circumstances, though he still retained the opinion that more diocesan work should be imposed upon the cathedral bodies, he was

  443
  not prepared to offer any opposition to the present Bill, which he regarded merely as one additional step in a direction which Parliament and Government had long followed. He was far from blaming the University of Oxford for having refused to endow the Greek Professorship, because it was bound by express statute to take into consideration the question of soundness of doctrine in professors; but Parliament was otherwise situated, and it might very fairly make provision for the only remaining unendowed Regius Professorship to be found at the Universities, wholly apart from any personal question.
  Moved, "That the House do now resolve itself into a Committee on the said Bill."—(The Lord Chancellor.)
  LORD CHELMSFORDsaid, he wished to make some remarks on the Bill, which ought to have been addressed to their Lordships on a former occasion; and his apology was that, on communicating with his noble Friend the Chancellor of the University (the Earl of Derby), he was induced to think that the measure would give satisfaction to the University, and therefore he was then reluctant to offer any opposition to it. He was very unwilling, however, to allow the Bill to go into Committee without expressing his views with respect to it. He did not deny that the present state of affairs, in connection with the Regius Professorship of Greek, was almost a reproach to the University; and all must agree that it was desirable, if they could do so properly, to add to the scanty stipend which he at present was paid; but he (Lord Chelmsford) objected to the manner in which the Bill proposed to augment it, namely, by annexing to it a canonry which was in the gift of the Lord Chancellor as a perpetual endowment. They could not disguise from themselves that although this was a measure of a general nature, and intended for all times, yet it had been introduced to meet the difficulty that had arisen with respect to a particular individual. He was far from wishing to say anything in disparagement of the eminent Professor who now occupied the chair, whose scholarship and attainments he fully acknowledged; but if the question were, whether he was a fit and proper person to be appointed to a canonry, he thought it could not be doubted that different opinions might be entertained upon the subject; and he presumed that his noble and learned Friend on the Wool-
  444
  sack, if he had the opportunity, would consider whether it would be a proper thing to appoint Professor Jowett to a vacant canonry. Now, by this Bill, his noble and learned Friend proposed to shift the responsibility from himself and throw it on the University. He could not help doubting whether canonries were appropriate remunerations for professorships, because he thought they ought to be reserved for persons who had served the Church long and faithfully, and had a very extended pastoral care, or who possessed great theological attainments which had been entirely devoted to the service of the Church. The rewards for deserving clergymen were but few, and those few had of late years been considerably abridged. He quite concurred with the noble Earl on the cross-benches (Earl Grey), who stated, on the second reading of the Bill, that its effect would be to narrow the choice of proper persons to fill the professorial chairs; although it had been stated, on the other hand, that no inconvenience had resulted in the change with regard to the Professorships of Hebrew and Greek at Cambridge, to which canonries at Ely had been annexed. His noble Friend, however, pointed out that if the Act had been in existence in Porson's time he never could have sat in the professorial chair, because he was not in holy orders; and the effect of annexing canonries to professorial chairs would be either to deprive them of the selection of the person best qualified for the office, or it would induce persons who otherwise would not be so disposed to enter the Church and to take holy orders with a view to a professorship, and after six years they would be qualified to accept high appointments in the Church to which they might be wholly unsuited. But was it so that no inconvenience had been sustained from the annexation of the canonry of Ely to the Regius Professorship of Cambridge? At the time of the passing of the Act, Dr. Lee, who was a man of considerable learning, who had devoted the whole of his life to study, who was a most distinguished Oriental scholar, and who was in every respect the person best qualified for the office, held a stall in Bristol Cathedral. This being more valuable than the canonry attached to the Regius Professorship, he was obliged to give up that chair, and the immediate effect of the Act was to deprive the University of the services as professor of a man most eminently qualified to fill that office. His noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack

  445
  being extremely anxious to obviate any difficulties that might arise upon this subject, had offered a bribe to the University by giving to the heads of Colleges the appointment to the canonry on their again endowing the Regius Professorship. Now, he quite agreed with the noble Duke (the Duke of Marlborough) who said on a former occasion that if the Government wished to induce the colleges to endow the professorship by offering to annex a canonry, that it would be better at once to transfer the appointment of the Regius Professor to the University, and it being their own appointment they would be prepared to endow it; the only objection to their endowing it at present being that it was not in their gift but in that of the Crown, and that they were unable to apply any of their funds towards it; such an arrangement would no doubt put an end to all the difficulties of the subject. He objected to the Bill because he could not disguise from himself that it had been introduced for the purpose of meeting a difficulty that had arisen with regard to a particular individual, and because he thought that canonries ought not to be annexed to professorial chairs, but given to deserving clergymen.
  LORD TAUNTONsaid, that with all respect for the governing body of the University, he was bound, after their recent behaviour in this very case, to protest against the suggestion which had been made as to the transfer of the chair from the Church to the University. It would be injurious to the University, and most injurious to the professorship itself. He considered that the objections to the Bill were very serious. He was anxious that the present injustice to Professor Jowett and the scandal to the University should be brought to a close; but he could not approve the arrangement proposed in the Bill. It was not right that a layman, whatever his attainments, should be excluded from the Greek chair, and that tuition of this kind should be confined to the clergy. This was the adoption of a permanent measure to remedy a temporary grievance, and it might lead to permanent evils. He therefore thought that, on the whole, he should feel bound, if an opportunity were given him, to vote against the further progress of the Bill. He was sensible of the inconveniences of the present state of things in the University of Oxford; but, having considered both sides of the question, the objections to the Bill ap-
  446
  peared to him to preponderate. He did not like to take away one of the few prizes given to a body by no means overpaid—he meant the working clergy. The whole thing seemed to be what was vulgarly called a "botch," for it was an attempt to attach to a professorship which ought to be properly remunerated, a payment of another description. The University had received a large remission of taxation to the amount of £12,000 or £16,000 a year, and he therefore trusted that that body, having received such an advantage, would consider the fitness of attaching an adequate salary to the Greek Professorship. He had brought his mind to the conviction that, on the whole, the present Bill ought not to receive their Lordships' assent.
  THE EARL OF DERBYsaid, he must confess he felt himself in a position of difficulty with regard to this Bill, and to the position which he had the honour to hold in the University. Their Lordships would remember that on the Motion for the second reading, finding no other noble Lord disposed to offer observations with respect to it, he felt it right, in his peculiar position, to state at once the ground on which he conceived he was not entitled to take upon himself the responsibility of advising the rejection of the measure. At the same time, he stated the strong objections which he felt to the measure. These grounds of objection were, on the one side, that the proposed arrangement would neccessarily confine the professorship in question to a clergyman, and on the other hand would deprive the working clergy of one of the few prizes remaining to them, and would extend the principle of separating cathedral honours from anything connected with cathedral residence. At the same time, he did not feel himself authorized to move the rejection of the Bill on the Motion for the second reading; and for this reason—that he was given to understand that the arrangement would settle a very delicate and difficult question in a satisfactory manner —satisfactory in the sense that it would relieve the University from a great difficulty. The measure was brought forward, as he understood, on the avowed and only ground that the Greek Professorship was not at the present moment adequately endowed by the University of Oxford, In the discussion which took place on the second reading, he was somewhat favourably impressed with the suggestion thrown out by his noble Friend (the Duke of Marlborough); but when he came to the

  447
  consideration of it he felt the difficulties of acceding to it which had been mentioned by his noble Friend. It was one thing to vest the patronage in the University at large, and another thing to vest it in a certain portion of the University. He felt a strong objection to place the canonry and professorship in a position to be scrambled for by a general canvass among Convocation. There was a proposal some years ago to endow the Regius Professorship of Greek, and that the patronage should be placed in a small board, of which three were to be nominated by the Crown and two selected from persons holding particular offices in the University. It was thought that in that way the rights of the Crown, and the interests of learning, might have been jointly protected. That proposal, however, was not felt to be satisfactory to either the Crown or the University, but certainly not to the University. But a proposal of this nature was different from one to place it in the University at large. He thought his noble Friend (Lord Taunton), who had just sat down, was rather hard on the University when he said that in his opinion the University ought to provide for the endowment out of their own revenues; because now that the attention of the University had been drawn to the matter, he believed that the University would not be found indisposed to make a proper provision for the' Greek Professorship if it were not for the strong objections entertained by the majority of the University to the teaching and opinions of the individual now holding that professorship; and, so far as he could learn, it would be hopeless, as long as that individual should hold it, to make any application to the University to endow it; not because the professorship was not inadequately endowed, but because the University objected to do any thing which might be taken to indicate an apparent acquiescence in opinions to which they objected. He would not take upon himself the responsibility of proposing the rejection of the Bill to their Lordships; but if it should go into Committee, and should the clause suggested by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack be adopted, he should propose a provision founded on that clause; but seeing that the difficulty was on the one hand temporary, and that the objections to the Bill were of a permanent character, it would be very satisfactory if, after the discussion which the Bill had undergone, time were given to the Uni-
  448
  versity of Oxford and to Parliament more fully to consider the measure. He thought that the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, who had undoubtedly proposed the Bill with the sincere desire or serving the interests of the University and the public, would do well voluntarily to postpone pressing a measure, to which on all sides there was great objection, and on which, if a division took place, it was quite clear the decision would not be guided by party views or political considerations.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, that if he were asked by their Lordships whether he considered the present Bill the best mode of proceeding to endow the Greek Professorship at Oxford, he should certainly answer that it was not. The best mode undoubtedly would be for the University to do that which justice and reason pointed out, and which, in fact, good faith demanded; for the University had received great gifts from the Crown with the understanding that the duty of endowing public professorships should be fulfilled on their part. The duty of the University was not that of superintending the system of private instruction which was carried on in the colleges, but of adequately endowing for the benefit of the whole community within its walls—as the name of University implied—public professorships. A statute had been lately brought into the University—and he alluded to the subject reluctantly, because at the very onset he bad earnestly deprecated the introduction of personal allusions into the controversy, if controversy it could be called—and it was therein declared that in passing the statute the University was not to be considered in any manner whatever as having sanctioned, acquiesced in, or approved the peculiar opinions of Professor Jowett. Unfortunately, the hopes which were then raised were not fulfilled; but the avowed reason given by the majority for refusing to endow the professorship was, that it was the duty of the Crown to endow it. He believed he was perfectly right in stating, on the authority of the public prints, that in the language used by the majority that was assigned as the prominent reason for the adverse vote given. He had accepted that explanation in all sincerity, and in order to remove the difficulty had introduced the present Bill. There were, he admitted, at the outset grave and considerable difficulties. He had not the least objection to discuss them. But let them

  449
  proceed in all honesty:—if they disliked the Bill, let them consider whether it ought to be rejected or not; but if their Lordships were of opinion that the Bill should pass as the smaller of two evils, why, then he would beg of them to swallow the dose with a good grace. Let them come now to the consideration of the main merits of the case. The noble Lord who had presented petitions on the subject (Lord Lyttelton) would pardon him for saying that he thought if he had read one of them he would not have presented it. He had no doubt that the petitioner was a clergyman entitled to extreme respect; but the first I part of his petition was full of lachrymose complaints because his own merits had not been rewarded by a canonry, and the second contained an expression of his extreme indignation that part of the preferments of the Church should be tied up to a Professorship at Oxford, with the almost certain result of branding the office with the stamp of comparative mediocrity. The reverend petitioner was of opinion that an office which would be confined to ecclesiastics would be branded with the stamp of comparative mediocrity! He (the Lord Chancellor) had not the smallest apprehension that if it should happen once out of 500 times that it would be proper to have a layman professor, the difficulty would be met by the University or by the Crown. If the House would permit this Bill to go into Committee, he would take the opportunity of explaining, even for the second time, the nature of one or two Amendments which he intended to propose. He proposed, if any one college should endow the Professorship of Greek, that the canonry with which for the time being the professor should be endowed should be attached to the headship of the college, In introducing that subject, he had referred to the new statute of the College of Corpus Christ. Corpus Christ College was one of the earliest foundations of the University, and the founder, in the quaint language of the time, expressed his desire that part of the revenues of the College should be devoted to the endowment of public lecturers in Latin and Greek. If the College revenues increased sufficiently, the Professorship of Latin was to be endowed with £600 a year; and he (the Lord Chancellor) consequently thought that the endowment of the Greek Professorship should in like manner be £600. Now it would, he thought, be a small thing to carry that statute into effect; and
  450
  in the expectation that the authorities would do so he had introduced a clause which would have the effect of annexing the canonry to the headship of the College, if the College should carry out the statute by endowing the Professorship with the appointed income of £600 a year. His noble and learned Friend (Lord Chelmsford) had said that those canonries ought to be the reward of great services in the Church; and in that he (the Lord Chancellor) quite concurred. He quite admitted that they might be appropriated by a new law and by new regulations to more useful purposes than they served at present. But he must take them as they were, as they had been for a considerable period, and, so far as could be seen, as they were likely to remain; and, he asked, was there any purpose by which the cause of religion or education could be better promoted, by which meritorious clergymen could be better rewarded, than by making use of one of those canonries to induce them to attend to the duties attaching to this public Professorship, and which until lately had never been discharged? In deference to the suggestion of the right rev. Prelate, he should propose that at present the canonry annexed to the Professorship should be a temporary annexation, and that the canonry should ultimately be one in the cathedral church of Bristol. He trusted that their Lordships would accept this Bill in the spirit in which it was offered—namely, a desire to promote the interests of the Church and of learning, of fulfilling a great want and pressing obligagation that lay upon the University and the Crown.
  THE EARL OF CARNARVONsaid, that the recommendation of his noble Friend (the Earl of Derby), that a little longer time should be given for the consideration of this Bill, was so reasonable that he would move that the Committee he postponed for three weeks. He could assure the noble and learned Lord that he made this Motion in no spirit of antagonism to the Bill. The more he considered the measure, however, the less he liked the mode in which this endowment was carried out. There were three parties whose interests were involved —the Cathedral Church, the church generally, and the University. Many changes; had been made of late years in capitular endowments, and residence had been very properly made more obligatory upon the canons. In the next place, canonries were no longer treated as sinecures, but as

  451
  offices tending to develop the efficiency of the cathedral endowment, and making the cathedral the centre of the diocese. What was the ease of the cathedral church of Rochester? There were four canonries, one of which was appropriated to the Provost of Oriel. Each canon had three months' residence, and it was clear that the long vacation was the only time of the year when the Provost of Oriel could be in residence. If, however, there were to be two canonries of this kind it was impossible the terms of residence could be complied with. The noble and learned Lord proposed that a canonry of Rochester should be temporarily annexed to the Professorship— [The LORD CHANCELLOR: If it be vacant]—and then afterwards to attach the canonry of Bristol permanently to the professor's chair. But was that a satisfactory mode of dealing with the question? It might be many years before the canonry at Bristol fell vacant; and meanwhile, Parliament was called upon to enact that which was anomalous, inconvenient, objectionable, and contrary to the whole spirit of recent legislation. With regard to the interests of the Church generally he objected to withdraw the few rewards that now remained for zealous and hard-working clergymen, especially as a great many of the canonries were already annexed, so to speak, to offices foreign to the cathedrals, or at all events having no direct connection with them. Then, with respect to the interests of the University itself, there was one point which had not yet been touched upon. By the University Act, passed eight or nine years ago, a great change had been made in the whole character of the lay schools of the University. Up to that time almost the whole of the fellowships were held by clergymen, but a great change had since been made, and half the fellowships were now not only tenable, but were actually held by laymen. By this Bill their Lordships were asked to deprive a moiety of the intellect of the University of their fair share in the rewards they formerly enjoyed. For these reasons he trusted that the Bill would be postponed.
  Amendment moved, to leave out ("now") and insert("this Day three Weeks.")— (The Earl of Carnarvon.)
  EARL GREYsaid, he greatly regretted that the Lord Chancellor had not acceded to the proposal of his noble Friend (the Earl of Derby) to withdraw the Bill for the present year, because the discussion
  452
  had convinced him that the measure in its present shape ought not to pass. The Amendments to be proposed by the noble and learned Lord in no way touched the main objections to the Bill. He should certainly support the proposal of his noble Friend to defer the Committee on the Bill for three weeks, and would even venture to express his wish that it had been for three months. There was a very good attendance of their Lordships, the subject had been fully discussed, and the House was quite in a position to pronounce a decision.
  LORD REDESDALEsaid, that there was no use in postponing the Bill for three weeks, for at the end of that time the same questions would again arise. He believed that the Amendments of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack had been introduced with the best possible motives; but he did not think that they would remove the objections which existed. With the view of giving their Lordships an opportunity of saying whether they wished to proceed with the Bill upon the present occasion, he moved the Previous Question.
  Motion objected to, and a Question being stated thereupon, the Previous Question was put, Whether the said Question shall be now put?
  THE LORD CHANCELLORsaid, that if the proposal for an adjournment of three weeks had been accompanied by the assurance that the noble Earl believed that in the course of that three weeks any proposal would be made, or anything would occur, to render this Bill unnecessary, he would most gladly acquiesce in it; but if the real motive — but thinly disguised— were to defeat the measure by a Fabian policy, then he thought that it would be better to raise the direct issue on the Motion for the postponement of the Committee, and take the decision of the House upon it. But to put forward a specious proposal for adjournment, knowing all the time that the real intention was to do nothing in the interval, and that the Motion was a mere hollow pretence, was a proceeding which he trusted their Lordships would not sanction or concur in. There were objections to this Bill, no doubt. There were objections to everything; and all that could be done in this world was to accept whatever embodied the greatest amount of attainable good; and this condition, he submitted, was secured by the present Bill. He repeated that he would rather take the opinion of their Lordships at once whether they would proceed with the Bill or not.
  THE EARL OF DERBYthought the noble and learned Lord was scarcely courteous i in the way he had received the proposal of the noble Earl (the Earl of Carnarvon). He did not gather from his noble Friend's speech that he had any other intention than to give the House, the country, and the University of Oxford further time for considering the Bill, in order to ascertain whether the objections might be removed, But it was not fair to call upon his noble Friend to give a promise, which it might not be in his power to fulfil, that in three weeks' time matters would be in a more satisfactory condition than they were now. He agreed, however, that a postponement for three weeks would be of very little advantage, because he believed that matters would then remain very much as they were now. The proposal he made was that the Bill should be withdrawn for the present Session, to give an opportunity of considering whether any satisfactory arrangement might be come to, and further time for all parties interested to give their attention to this very important question. He confessed that, in his mind, the subject was hardly ripe for treatment by their Lordships, and he thought the Previous Question moved by the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees afforded a very convenient method of pronouncing a decision, especially as that Motion, by the rules of the House, took precedence of all Amendments. If carried, it would have the effect of postponing the further progress of the measure indefinitely, at the same time that it would be competent for the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack to give fresh notice in case he thought it desirable to do so, and the postponement for the whole of the Session would not necessarily be involved.
  THE BISHOP OF ST. DAVID'Ssaid, he desired to state the grounds of his objection to this Bill. It seemed to him that there was one great principle which ought to govern all their legislation, except in cases where there was an evil so crying or of such magnitude as to be absolutely intolerable—and that was, that they should look more to the future than to the immediate present. If they were for a moment to abstract themselves from present circumstances, and to look to the future alone, there would appear such strong objections to this measure as to render it hardly possible for their Lordships to accept it. The simple ground upon which he felt a repugnance to the measure was that it appeared inevitably to have the effect of
  454
  damaging the Greek Professorship of Oxford. It was impossible to say that the imitation of the Professorship to a single Class would not have the inevitable effect of lowering its value and its dignity. He was quite aware of the importance of those studies which it was the object of the Professorship to cultivate for the interests of he Church; but while he conceded that it was very important indeed that those he were destined for the clerical profession should have the best possible instruction that could be afforded in the University, he did not consider it as at all necessary for that purpose that the clergy should be the body which was to furnish the best possible instructor in those studies: on the contrary, he believed that the effect of annexing this Professorship in perpetuity to the clergy would be to prevent the possibility of being always sure that the best instruction would be obtainable. He was not insensible to the other considerations so eloquently urged in behalf of the measure; but his objection was that, if carried, it would have the effect of applying a remedy of a most unsatisfactory kind to an evil merely of a temporary character.
  LORD CRANWORTHsaid, he felt, in common, probably, with a majority of their Lordships, considerable doubt as to the vote which he ought to give. He entertained great reluctance to support any Motion having the immediate effect of rejecting the Bill, lest he should become identified with opinions entirely repugnant to his own feelings. On the other hand, he could not be insensible to the objections raised to the measure. Understanding that there was a sum of money in possession of the College which might possibly be appropriated to the endowment, he thought three weeks by no means an unreasonable delay.
  THE LORD CHANCELLORexplained that the revenues of Corpus were not sufficient to endow the Professorship, and consequently that the sum of money referred to was not in existence.
  LORD CRANWORTHsaid, the revenues of the College, although insufficient at the present moment, might hereafter become adequate for the purpose, and some information on the point would be very desirable.
  THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURYsaid, he was anxious to guard against the supposition, in voting for the Previous Question, that he was at all desirous of defeating the object of the Bill. He gave the noble and learned Lord credit for the

  455
  motive with which he had introduced it, but there were so many and such great difficulties in the way that he heartily desired further time for consideration, and he thought the Bill might be fairly postponed till next Session. He always looked forward to the probability of the endowment coming from the University itself.
  On Question:—their Lordships divided: —Contents 25; Not-Contents 55: Majority 30.
  Resolved in the Negative.

  CONTENTS.

  Westbury, L. (L. Chancellor.)

  Camoys, L.

  Clandeboye, L. (L. Dufferin and Claneboye.)

  York, Archbp.

  Dacre, L.

  Devonshire, D.

  Dartrey, L. (L. Cremorne.)

  Somerset, D.

  Foley, L. [Teller.]

  Normanby, M.

  Lyttelton, L.

  Monson, L.

  Cathcart, E.

  Ponsonby L. (E. Bessborough).[Teller.]

  Clarendon, E.

  De Grey, E.

  Seymour L. (E. St. Maur).

  Ducie, E.

  Granville, E.

  Suffield, L.

  Saint Germans, E.

  Sundridge, L. (D. Argyll

  Zetland, E.

  Sydney, V.

  Wodehouse, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Canterbury, Archbp.

  Down, &c., Bp.

  Armagh, Archbp.

  Ossory, &c., Bp.

  Oxford, Bp.

  Grafton, D.

  Rochester, Bp.

  St. David's, Bp.

  Bath, M.

  Bristol, M.

  Helper, L.

  Boyle, L. (E. Cork and Orrery).

  Airlie, E.

  Amherst, E.

  Brodrick, L. (E. Midleton).

  Carnarvon, E.

  Derby, E.

  Charlemont, L. (E. Charlemont).

  Devon, E.

  Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensberry).

  Chelmsford, L.

  Churston, L.

  Colchester, L.

  Effingham, E.

  Colville of Culross, L. [Teller.]

  Ellenborough, E.

  Grey, E.

  Cranworth, L.

  Hardwicke, E.

  Dunsany, L,

  Minto, E.

  Egerton, L.

  Nelson, E.

  Heytesbury, L.

  Romney, E.

  Monteagle of Brandon, L.

  Shrewsbury, E.

  Stanhope, E.

  Overstone, L.

  Polwarth, L.

  Clancarty, V. (E. Clanearly).

  Redesdale, L. [Teller.]

  Rollo, L.

  De Vesci, V.

  Silchester, L, (E. Longford).

  Hawarden, V.

  Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore).

  Stratheden, L.

  Taunton, L,

  Sidmouth, V.

  Wensleydale, L.

  Strathallan, V.

  Wentworth, L. (V. Ockham).

  Cork, &c., Bp.

  Wynford, L.

  House adjourned at a quarter past Seven o'clock, to Monday the 23rd instant, a quarter before Five o'clock.