Sitting of 11 June 1872

MINUTES.
SUPPLY—considered in Committee—Resolutions [June 10] reported.
PUBLIC BILL—Committee—Education (Scotland) [31]—R.P.
The House met at Two of the clock.

EUROPEAN ASSURANCE SOCIETY BILL—(by Order.)

  THIRD READING.
  Order for Third Reading read.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."
  MR. EYKYNrose to move that the Order of the Day for the third reading of the Bill be read and discharged, and that the Bill be re-committed to the former Committee. He regretted to stand in the way of the solution of the very difficult question involved in that Bill,

  1585
  being himself strongly in favour of the principle of arbitration, and believing that the constitution of a proper Court of Arbitration by the Government would confer lasting benefits on the country. His objection to the present Bill related only to one point—namely, the question of who was to be the arbitrator under it? He did not think that ex-Lord Chancellors should hold such appointments. Filling the high position which they did as Peers and as Judges in "another place," and being, as he thought, well entitled to the recompense which the country gave them, he regarded it as unwise in those noble and learned Lords to depart from the rule followed by their predecessors and to enter into competition with their former brethren of the long-robe. If he had been rightly informed, Lord Cairns had declined to act as arbitrator in this case, on the ground that it would interfere with his duties in the House of Lords, and the appointment had thereupon been offered to and accepted by Lord Westbury, who was to receive for his services as arbitrator 3,500 guineas. He (Mr. Eykyn) thought it unbecoming that ex-Lord Chancellors should undertake to act as arbitrators for fee and reward, and he had drawn the attention of the House of Commons to these circumstances, in order that some notice might be taken of them in "another place."
  Amendment proposed, to leave out from the word "be" to the end of the Question, in order to add the words "re-committed to the former Committee,"—(Mr. Eykyn,)—instead thereof.
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."
  MR. BARNETT, as Chairman of the Committee to which this Bill had been referred, might say that when they recommended a course of arbitration the counsel on both sides unanimously offered their thanks to the Committee for having so decided. He had no doubt that ex-Lord Chancellors very usefully employed their time in the judicial tribunal of the House of Lords; but, in his opinion, there could not be a more important judicial function than that which this Bill proposed to confer upon Lord Westbury. The interests involved in the case were so immense and intri-
  1586
  cate that it would require a man of great acuteness of mind and of judicial ability to bring the matter to a satisfactory ending. It must be remembered that when Lord Chancellors were pensioned no condition was imposed upon them that would prevent their accepting the position of arbitrators in such cases as that now under discussion. He could not help having a suspicion that the interest of some persons would be served by delay in this matter; and, without imputing any motives or mentioning any names, he was afraid that this Amendment would have the effect of carrying out their object.
  MR. COLLINSsaid, he thought that the House ought to feel obliged to the hon. Member for Windsor (Mr. Eykyn) for calling attention to this case; because there was really a great principle involved in it. A person who had filled the office of Lord Chancellor received a pension of £5,000 a-year, on the ground that he had lost the opportunity of making money in his profession, If ex-Lord Chancellors were to act as arbitrators, with salaries of £2,000 or £3,000 a-year, he could not see upon what principle their magnificent retiring pensions could be defended. It appeared to him that it would be wise of the Government to consider the subject when they were dealing with the Judicial Committee or the new Court of Appeal. He hoped the hon. Member for Windsor would not divide the House upon the question.
  MR. JAMESsaid, he hoped the hon. Member for Windsor would not divide the House on his Amendment. It would be a great hardship to the members of the different assurance companies if this Bill were not passed, and he thought that the House ought to make some sacrifice of principle on behalf of those unfortunate persons. He hoped, therefore, that the Amendment would be withdrawn; but, at the same time, considered that some protest should be made against this dangerous practice, lest it should be drawn into a precedent. The Albert case had been quoted as a precedent in order to justify the present proceeding. The Appellate Court was starved from want of power, that power being the services of eminent Lord Chancellors. Lord Cairns, when Lord Chancellor, directed that County Court Judges should in no case hold arbitrations when their

  1587
  Courts were sitting, and yet Lord Cairns became an arbitrator, and sat as such when he ought to be sitting in the Court of Appeals; and was a party to the passing of a Bill which gave him £2,000, and as much more as he wished to appropriate to himself by his own will. Of course, he should speak of Lord Cairns with the utmost possible respect; but surely human nature was human nature, and if a man could sit in the Appellate Court when he liked, and do other business besides, was it not natural that ex-Lord Chancellors would yield to the temptation of the latter rather than give their services to the country? Surely, if the House wished to preserve the dignity of the Bench, and have suitors come to Courts above suspicion, they ought to make clear their protest against the course sanctioned by this Bill. However humble his voice, it should be ever raised on behalf of the profession.
  MR. STEPHEN CAVEsaid, he thought the present was not a time for discussing so grave a question of policy as the one they were then dealing with, and he also was of opinion that his hon. Friend behind him (Mr. Barnett) was a little too severe in some of his remarks. The liquidators had acted under the directions of the Court of Chancery, and he thought that no imputation of interested motives ought to be made against them. It was an open question entirely as to which was the better way of dealing with the matter—whether to send the Bill to arbitration, or to give powers to the Court of Chancery for settling the question. The President of the Board of Trade had promised to introduce clauses in his Bill, giving powers to the Court of Chancery to decide such questions as these; but they had not seen these clauses, and could not tell whether they would become law. He thought, therefore, that it would not be fair to deprive the Company of one mode of meeting their difficulties before they were sure of the other. Should these clauses be sufficient, the Bill might be dropped in "another place." He thought the House should allow the Bill to be read a third time.
  MR. EYKYNwithdrew his Amendment, with the view of moving on an early day a Resolution that, in the opinion of the House, no ex-Chancellor should accept any fee or reward for act-
  1588
  ing as arbitrator or referee, unless specially appointed by the Government.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Main Question put, and agreed to.
  Bill read the third time, and passed.

MASTER AND SERVANT (WAGES) BILL.

  QUESTION.
  MR. PELLasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether Her Majesty's Government have decided on proceeding with the Master and Servant (Wages) Bill, and, if so, in what order they propose to take it?
  MR. BRUCEsaid, in reply, that it was the intention of the Government to proceed with the Bill. But with regard to the order he must refer the hon. Gentleman to the Answer given by the Prime Minister on a recent occasion, to the effect that the order in which the remaining Government Bills will be proceeded with must be determined after the Scotch Education Bill and the Mines Regulation Bill have passed through Committee.

EDUCATION—INSPECTORS OF ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS.—QUESTION.
MR. H. SAMUELSONasked the Vice President of the Committee of Council on Education, Whether Certificated Elementary Teachers are at present excluded from filling the appointment of Inspectors of Elementary Schools, and if that be the case, if he would consider the advantage of removing that restriction would act as an additional inducement to men of ability to become Teachers in the Primary Schools?
MR. W. E. FORSTERsaid, in reply, that elementary teachers were not at present excluded from filling the appointment of Inspectors. There were two Rules which guided his noble Friend (the Marquess of Ripon), with whom the appointment of Inspectors absolutely rested; the Vice President had nothing to do with it. Of these two Rules, one was a Treasury Rule, that the persons appointed should not be over 35 years of age. The other was a Rule which his noble Friend thought expedient—namely, that no person should be appointed who had not taken University honours. It was possible that these two Rules, the first of which applied not only

1589
to Inspectors, but to other appointments, might make it difficult for certificated teachers to become Inspectors.

TREATY OF WASHINGTON.
  TRIBUNAL OF ARBITRATION (GENEVA) THE INDIRECT CLAIMS.

    THE SUPPLEMENTAL ARTICLE.
    ENLARGEMENT OF TIME.—STATEMENT.
    MR. GLADSTONE: I rise with reference to a Notice kindly given for me by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Home Department, on the adjournment of the House this morning. I shall make a brief statement to the House, partly with reference to the rumours that are in circulation, partly with reference to the stage which we have reached in the communications with the American Government, although the statement I shall make will not be a final and conclusive one. ["Oh!"] Although it will not be final and conclusive, I will endeavour to make it clear. For that purpose I will just remind the House of the main points which have been present to the mind of Parliament and of the country in such declarations as have been made, and such inquiries and suggestions as have been made during the last few weeks. The first of these points in order is the negotiation of a Supplemental Article containing a prospective engagement, and likewise containing a stipulation with respect to the Indirect Claims at Geneva. The second of these is the question, to which allusion was very properly made on a former occasion by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire (Mr. Disraeli), with respect to the enlargement of time. The right hon. Gentleman inquired, I think, whether measures had been taken for the purpose of securing that, if the time for discussing and settling the terms of the Supplemental Article should not be sufficient, the time specified in the Treaty of Washington should be enlarged. And the third point which has been present to the mind of Parliament and the country has been—presuming that we should fail on both the other points—the measures to be adopted at Geneva with reference to the exclusion of the Claims for Indirect Losses from any award or procedure before the Arbitrators. Sir, with respect to the first of these points—that is to say, the negotiation and adjustment of
    1590
    the terms of the Supplemental Article in the time which has been at our command—we have not been able to agree upon the terms of that prospective engagement which refers to the presentation of what I may loosely call Indirect Claims upon future occasions, although, as the House is aware, there has not been, and there is not, any difference of view between the two Governments as to the course to be taken at Geneva with respect to the Indirect Claims under the Treaty of Washington, in case an adjustment were arrived at with respect to the Supplemental Article as a whole. So much for the first point. With respect to the second point—the enlargement of time—I mentioned in the House, when the right hon. Gentleman opposite suggested it, that that matter had been in the view of Her Majesty's Government, and we are still in communication with the Government of the United States as to the means of bringing about an adjournment of the proceedings of the Tribunal of Arbitration. I am not yet able to say what the issue of these communications will be. It is obvious to the House that the issue must be reached almost immediately, inasmuch as the 15th of June is the day on which some decisive step at Geneva must be taken. And when that issue is reached, it will be our desire forthwith to lay upon the Table the Papers containing the whole details of the proceedings up to the present time. Lastly, Sir, and with regard to what should be done on the 15th of June at Geneva in the event of our failing in the second point, as for the present we have failed in the first, all I can say, and that I think the House will expect me to say, is this—we are considering, and we shall, in any case, be prepared with measures which we think proper measures to be taken at Geneva on the 15th of June, in order to sustain, in their full force, the declarations which on various occasions we have made to Parliament and the country with reference to the Claims for Indirect Losses under the Treaty of Washington.
    MR. OSBORNE: Sir, I have listened to the statement of the right hon. Gentleman in mute astonishment. It is not for me to guage the limits of Parliamentary patience. But, with such a document as I have seen this morning in the columns of The Daily News, I ask whether we can possibly rest satisfied,

    1591
    provided that document be not a forgery, or, to use the expression of the right hon. Gentleman on another occasion, "furnished by literary enterprise." I say, if that document be genuine, we are in a position to demand further explanations from Her Majesty's Government. Now, Sir, I do not wish unnecessarily to embarrass Her Majesty's Government, and I think the conduct of this House has been most exemplary with regard to them. I only ask hon. Gentlemen who have sat here for some lengthened period what, in their opinion, would have happened if a Conservative Government had been in office? Would not anxious, rising young men, as well as old men on this side, have put before now some very awkward questions? Sir, I think we are approaching a very grave crisis in the history of this country. The right hon. Gentleman appears to me to be a little too anxious to make this Treaty at any price; and our connections on the other side of the water fully understand the right hon. Gentleman, and are prepared to take advantage of his anxiety. I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether this despatch, which has been printed in The Daily News—through enterprise, of course—and which states that Earl Granville has directly written to Mr. Fish, the Secretary of the United States Government, and made a proposition to the effect that the Arbitration at Geneva should be postponed for eight months, is true? [Cries of "Read!"] No; it is unnecessary to read it. ["Read!"] Do not condemn me to that. Everybody has read it in The Daily News. [An hon. MEMBER: No, I have not.] Everybody will read it. It is simply a proposition from Earl Granville to Mr. Fish that these negotiations be postponed for eight months. ["Read!"] No, I will not read this humiliating despatch. If anybody is to read it the Clerk at the Table should read it. I object to read such a humiliating despatch myself. Although I have clung to the last to the hope that the Treaty would be carried out—not through any particular affection for this Treaty, but because I thought we were bound to it—it seems to me that what is now being done is not the way to carry it out. At any rate, if we cannot conclude a Treaty with dignity, let us get out of it in the best manner we can.
    MR. SPEAKER: I must remind the hon. Member that he is out of Order
    1592
    unless he is prepared to conclude with a Motion.
    MR. OSBORNE: I will hot conclude with a Motion, because I do not like to interrupt the Business of the. House; but I will put myself in Order by asking a Question. ["Move!"] No, I will leave some other hon. Member to do so. I have not received that assistance from the other side of the House or from this which would induce me to move the Adjournment of the House. I stand here simply as an independent Member of Parliament, and I wish to put this Question—Whether this latest telegram which we have seen in the columns—or, if some hon. Gentlemen have not seen it, which they will see in the columns of The Daily News of this morning—whether that telegram is founded on fact, or is the exact despatch written by Lord Granville to Mr. Fish?—I pause for a reply.
    MR. GLADSTONE: I do not wish to try the patience of my hon. Friend; but he will, upon reflection, naturally suppose that, though I did pause—almost, I think, for three-quarters of a second—before I rose, yet that it is very proper and natural that a Minister who has to answer a question on a subject of this kind should pause for a moment, inasmuch as it is his duty to bear in mind that there might possibly be other Members of the House, beside my hon. Friend, who were desirous to ask for information, and, consequently, that it would have been hardly respectful for me to rise the very moment my hon. Friend had sat down. I am in the condition of not having before me the document to which my hon. Friend has referred—[Mr. OSBORNE offered to pass it for the inspection of the right hon. Gentleman.]—nor would it be possible for me to go into it now, or examine it in such a way as to be able on the instant to give to my hon. Friend the assurance he desires as to its literary and verbal accuracy. On this point, of course, I should have to refer to the original. But my hon. Friend has put a question which I will answer very readily—Has Lord Granville proposed that the negotiations at Washington should be postponed for a period of eight months? Sir, the proposal was that such a postponement should be made upon a joint application of the two Governments; and the proposition which my hon. Friend describes has been made by Lord Gran-

    1593
    ville. My hon. Friend describes this document as a humiliating document. Well, the Government are responsible for the proposition which has been made. They will contend, when the proper time comes for doing so, that it is not a humiliating document, but a proposition required by national justice, national interests, and national honour. That will be our contention. I only mention it now with reference to the opinion given by my hon. Friend, because this is not the time to defend the cause of the Government. But I have not the least hesitation or difficulty in avowing that that proposition for an adjournment of eight months, if agreed to by the two parties—and the application would be a joint one—was made by Lord Granville and by the Cabinet on Saturday last. I will only add one explanation with reference to the term of eight months which will naturally suggest questions to the minds of hon. Gentlemen. Why should the particular term of eight months, and so considerable a term, be included in such a proposal? The simple reason, so far as my own mind is concerned—and I believe that was also the view of my Colleagues—was this:—The purpose of this adjournment, should it be made, is to enable us to arrive at an agreement upon the terms of the proposed Supplementary Convention. That agreement cannot be made excepting by the concurrence, on the other side of the water, of the President and Senate of the United States. Now, it is perfectly true, I believe, that the President has the power to summon the Senate for the purpose of considering a question affecting a Treaty at any period. But we did not feel it would be entirely consistent with propriety on our part to make a suggestion to the President of the United States as to the time at which he should summon the Senate. We thought it right, on our part, in making the suggestion for an adjournment, to name a time within which the Senate would again be in Session; and I may also add that we thought it would be an additional advantage that the time we had named would also be a time when the Parliament of this country would again be in Session, and when, therefore, it would have the opportunity, which it might reasonably desire, of giving its opinion upon the negotiations while they were taking place.
    MR. DISRAELI: Sir, when the Question was put yesterday, the right hon. Gentleman formally and officially informed us by the mouth of one of his most eminent Colleagues of his intention of making an important communication to the House of Commons this day, and the right hon. Gentleman, faithful to his engagement, appeared in his place, and has made such a declaration. I think it most remarkable—I may say astounding—that the right hon. Gentleman made no allusion to that all-important document (the despatch published in The Daily News), the authenticity and even verbal accuracy of which I understand he does not for a moment dispute. Sir, it appears to me that the course taken by the Government is wanting in that frankness which, above all things, is necessary for the communications between Ministers and the representatives of the people. That document is an authentic document—and that document, signed by the Secretary of State, intimates the intention of proposing a delay of eight months in the meeting of the Tribunal of Geneva. The right hon. Gentleman wishes us to understand, in the second explanation that he has given us, the real reasons for that proposition. They may be so—it is not for me to doubt the convictions of the right hon. Gentleman, or what he believes to have been the convictions of his Colleagues as to the reasons which induced them to fix on that date; but we know very well that in eight months from this time a hot contest will be taking place in the United States for the highest position in that country; and I take the liberty to say that I know nothing more unwise or more indiscreet, nothing more to be deprecated, than that the relations between the two countries should be made the stalking-horse of discussion on every hustings. If Her Majesty's Government have been induced unconsciously to fix on the term of eight months in order that the President of the United States, his Government, and even the Senate might, perhaps, be in the humour then to accede to the propositions which at present they will not countenance, I think that result will be attained at too great a sacrifice, at a cost too perilous and pernicious, if it is to be attained by making the relations between the two countries a topic of exciting discussion

    1595
    during the Presidential election. I see an hon. Member rise as if I were not acting in unison with the Rules of the House. I never willingly act counter to those Rules, and if I am doing so on a most critical occasion, I will avail myself of a right which I should exercise with reluctance. I am at a loss also to understand from the right hon. Gentleman—for in this important statement, announced yesterday, and made under circumstances so critical, not the slightest allusion was made to that part of the subject—what is to become of all the other provisions of the Treaty of Washington during the interregnum. What is to become of the relations between this country and Canada? What of that guarantee which certainly has excited the anxious attention of Parliament? I may have misapprehended the right hon. Gentleman; but in his statement I understood him to say that the draft of the Supplementary Treaty was to be placed on the Table of this House, although not negotiated, in case the Tribunal at Geneva did not resume its duties on the 15th instant. Am I correct in that anticipation? If so, I should like to know the reason that has induced the right hon. Gentleman to depart from a line of conduct, the importance and necessity of which he dwelt on so much only a few days before. And if I have mistaken his meaning, if he is not going to place on the Table the draft Treaty, is it to be endured that for eight months after all that has occurred—after five months of anxious and baffled negotiations—is it to be endured that the people of this country should be ignorant of what is the question at issue between the Government of the Queen and the Government of the United States? Sir, these are subjects upon which we require information from the right hon. Gentleman. I wish to know why, when he came forward to make this statement, he did not advert to the most important element in our discussion—namely, the not-questioned despatch of the Secretary of State which has appeared in one of the public journals to-day. I wish to know whether, if the Tribunal at Geneva does not resume its duties on the 15th instant, I correctly understood the right hon. Gentleman that he would place on the Table the Supplementary Treaty, and the propositions of the United States, which have been so long in controversy
    1596
    between the two Governments. I wish to know, also, from the right hon. Gentleman, what is to be the condition of the Treaty of Washington with respect to the other and equally-important questions which it embraces. These are points upon which we require information; for, generally speaking, after the statement of the right hon. Gentleman, and coupling that statement with the despatch of the Secretary of State with which we have become so irregularly acquainted, I am alarmed at the course and conduct of Her Majesty's Government. I join issue—so far as my immediate impressions upon a state of affairs so startling will enable me to do so—I join issue with the policy of the right hon. Gentleman, for I believe that he is pursuing a policy which will end in disaster and disgrace to England.
    MR. BAILLIE COCHRANE: Before the right hon. Gentleman answers this Question I should be glad to put another Question. There is also a telegram appended to the reply in The Daily News, which states that Mr. Fish has refused to join in the declaration at once—that the American Government will not listen to the proposition of eight months' delay unless it is embodied in a new Treaty; and therefore, under the terms of the letter written by Lord Granville, the whole Arbitration seems to be at an end. I am very sorry the hon. Gentleman (Mr. Osborne) did not read the despatch out: but I have made extracts from it, and it is so very important that I hope the House will permit me to read it. It is a joint application that Lord Granville wishes to be submitted to the Arbitrators—if it is a joint application. Mr. Fish telegraphs to say that he refuses to join in the application, and therefore the whole Arbitration is now at an end.
    MR. NEWDEGATE: I rise to move the adjournment of the House. It is wholly unbecoming that in an Assembly such as this a discussion should be carried on beyond its Orders, if not in contravention of those Orders. My own impression is that on this important subject the House of Commons has abstained from action much too long. I shall not, however, enter into the merits of the question, which has now occupied the attention of the House irregularly during the last 20 minutes; I rise merely to enable the House to place itself in

    1597
    order, and therefore if necessary in action, by moving that the House do now adjourn.
    Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—(Mr. Newdegate.)
    MR. HORSMAN: I must say I agree with my hon. Friend who has just sat down. A very inconvenient practice is growing up, of which the majority of the House has some right to complain. The Leaders of the House on both sides enter into the fullest discussion upon most interesting questions, and raise all kinds of controversial matter; but when other Members try to take part in the debate they are called to order before they have spoken a dozen words. The Rules and Orders of this House know no distinction between Ministers of the Crown and private Members. All have the same privileges, and all ought to have awarded to them the right of discussion upon any question which may be brought forward, or all ought to be stopped. We have now had a despatch given to us in The Daily News, as to the authenticity of which, I believe, there is no doubt. I think it is to be regretted that information relating to the correspondence between our own Government and that of the United States is not already laid before Parliament; and I wish to ask, whether there is any objection on the part of the Government to give us the answer to that despatch?
    MR. GLADSTONE: Sir, my right hon. Friend has asked me whether there is any objection on the part of the Government to give the House the answer to the despatch which had been published in The Daily News. I presume his question must be understood to include both the despatch itself and the reply to it. The answer to the despatch does not purport to be a representation of its entire contents, but is rather a summary than the despatch itself. I do not think there would be any advantage whatever in laying these two documents—and I believe my right hon. Friend will see the force of what I say—I think there would be no advantage, but the contrary, in laying on the Table these two documents disconnected from those which preceded and followed them. Our desire is to place the House in possession of information at the earliest possible moment.
    1598
    To that subject I have already adverted; but to communicate to the House partial information upon which it would be quite impossible for the House to form just conclusions, would really not assist, but rather tend to bewilder the House, and would not be a course compatible with our own duty. My hon. Friend (Mr. Osborne) has censured me for not having referred to this despatch. My right hon. Friend (Mr. Horsman) says the Leaders of the House raise all kinds of controversial matters in their statements. I think the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Disraeli) can answer for himself. I do not know that he is open to much charge on his account; but, for my own part, in any statement which I have made to-day, I was most careful to avoid it. It was, however, necessary for me, in my answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Waterford, to state the propositions which we should be prepared to maintain. With regard to the statements of the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Disraeli), I do not object to his censuring me, if he likes, for not having referred to this document, with regard to which I am quite sensible of the great inconvenience that arises, not only from premature publication but from fragmentary publication; but I do not wish to be censured for Want of frankness. If the right hon. Gentleman thinks that I or my Colleagues entertained a hope that by refraining from referring to this document we should succeed in diverting the attention of the House from a paper which has been published by many tens of thousands—if he supposes we entertained a deliberate intention to withdraw a document of this kind from the notice of the House, I do not object to the charge of want of frankness; but I do object to the charge of fatuity which the right hon. Gentleman seems to think it consistent with Parliamentary usage to impute to me. Whether I was right or wrong, I did not ententain the idea that my want of allusion to the document would prevent any Gentleman who thought it desirable to make such an allusion from doing so. The right hon. Gentleman says truly that we have arrived at a knowledge of this document, and the public have arrived at it, in a manner most irregular. All that I can say on that subject is really needless, so far as we are concerned. I need not state that we

    1599
    have had no share in its publication. I am given to understand that the document was transmitted from the American Legation in this country to the United States of America by the telegraph, and not transmitted in cipher. That is the statement made to me, and I have nothing more to communicate upon that part of the subject. That is the whole extent of my knowledge. [Mr. OSBORNE: Not in cipher?] The document was transmitted en clair as the phrase is at the British Foreign Office descriptive of sending documents in plain language. The right hon. Gentleman opposite has put to me two Questions of great importance to which I will give him answers that I hope he will find perfectly explicit. Both of them are conditional on the supposition of there being an adjournment, at least the first of them is. The first Question is—what is to become, during the interval of the adjournment of the Tribunal, of all the other provisions of the Treaty of Washington? My answer is, that I apprehend that if an adjournment took place of the sittings of the Tribunal of Geneva, all the other provisions of the Treaty of Washington, and all the executory measures connected with those provisions, may proceed exactly as if no such adjournment had taken place. If an adjournment takes place, I apprehend it can hardly be but by the consent of both parties. I will not presume to give an authoritative opinion on that point; but I will assume that very little good could arise from an adjournment, unless it took place by the consent of the two parties; and if there were the consent of the two parties, I apprehend there could be no reason in the world why the other provisions under the Treaty of Washington should not proceed towards a full accomplishment, just as if the sittings of the Tribunal at Geneva had gone on continuously from the 15th of June. The second Question is this—whether the Papers which we have proposed to lay upon the Table include the Treaty which has been lately under negotiation? I understood the right hon. Gentleman to deliver to me a double challenge. In the first place he asked—I am not sure I understood him correctly—"Why, if you mean to include it, do you depart from the usual course, and decline to submit to Parliament negotiations which have not yet reached their final accom-
    1600
    plishment? Do you intend that the people of this country should remain in ignorance, during this long period, of the proceedings which have taken place, and of the actual state of the relations between the two countries?" I will first answer the second question, which relates to a matter of fact. We do not mean, certainly in the event of our failing to make arrangements for the adjournment, or, even if the arrangements are made for it, that the people of this country shall remain in ignorance of the steps we have taken. On the contrary, our opinion is, that at the point we have reached—perhaps I ought to say, especially after this publication, but even independently of this publication by The Daily News—our opinion is, that at the point we have reached it will be better that everything that has been done by the Government, on the part of the Crown and of the people, during those anxious communications, should be at once submitted to Parliament. That is the state of the case as regards the matter of fact. The right hon. Gentleman was perfectly justified in asking me why, and upon what grounds, we departed from the usual course of withholding details of the negotiations until they have reached their final accomplishment. I will give my reasons as simply and intelligibly as I can, and I hope they will be considered satisfactory. The negotiations which have been carried on have been negotiations with respect to the formation of a Supplementary Treaty, and not only with respect to the formation of a Supplementary Treaty—for if that were the whole truth, the question might still arise whether it would be desirable to submit the details of these negotiations at present. But they have been negotiations of a most peculiar kind [Mr. OSBORNE: Hear, hear!]—they have been for the conclusion of a Supplementary Treaty, but also for the conclusion of a Supplementary Treaty within a given time and before a certain date, and in order that the proceedings under the main Treaty of Washington might go forward on that date. So far as regards the conclusion of that Supplementary Treaty within a given time, as I have already stated, we have failed of its conclusion—I do not speak of its ultimate conclusion. I think the House will see, when the Papers are laid before them, how much reason

    1601
    there is to believe that if good sense be the dominating principle in the two nations on both sides of the Atlantic, it is almost an impossibility that there should be a final failure of agreement where the substantial questions of discord and controversy have been taken away. But I admit that, considering the Supplemental Treaty as an arrangement to be concluded within a given time, we have been unable to conclude it; and, that being so, it stands in immediate relation to the proceedings at Geneva on the 15th of June. We think it is due to Parliament that it should have an opportunity of judging of the whole of our conduct, in order that it may see whether we ought to and could have concluded, or whether we could not conclude, that Treaty so as to enable the proceedings at Geneva to go forward without impediment or interruption on the 15th. That is the reason why we think these negotiations should be laid on the Table of the House, although it undoubtedly involves, to a certain extent, a deviation from general rules; and, as I have stated, when we feel that the negotiations with respect to the question of adjournment have reached their issue, it will be our desire to submit that series of Correspondence which—though many, and perhaps the most important parts of it, have been transacted almost entirely by telegraph, will yet form the documents upon which we shall—I will not say, challenge—but shall patiently, and I may say also fearlessly, abide the judgment of Parliament and the country.
    MR. BOUVERIE: My right hon. Friend has made a long speech; but he has not answered the important question put to him by the hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Baillie Cochrane).
    MR. GLADSTONE: It is a pure omission, for which I apologize. The hon. Member opposite asked me whether the Arbitration was at an end. As I understood the hon. Member, he assumed that this letter having been sent by Lord Granville on Saturday, and having been answered by a document which did not accept the proposal connected with the Arbitration, the Arbitration was at an end. That is not so. These are not the final Papers on the case. Communications are still proceeding. I cannot undertake to say what their issue will be—I mean between this and Saturday next; but it would be a mistake to treat
    1602
    these Papers as bringing the negotiations to a conclusion.
    MR. BOUVERIE: I would call attention to the despatch which was written by our Foreign Secretary to the American Government, and of which it is agreed that we have an authentic report. It states the view of Her Majesty's Government on a review of the Correspondence, and Lord Granville goes on to say—
    "With this view I have the honour to propose that on the meeting of the Arbitrators that day" (the l5th of June, four days hence) "a joint application shall be made for an adjournment of eight months. If the Government of the United States concur in making this application for adjournment, it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to deliver to the Arbitrators on the 15th instant the summary of their argument, under the 5th Article of the Treaty of Washington."
    Then the same "enterprising" authority goes on to say—
    "Mr. Fish refuses to unite in this arrangement, believing that the time can only be extended by a new Treaty; but if the Arbitrators consent to adjourn on the request of Great Britain, the United States Government will not object."
    Now, what is the position of the Arbitrators; because no reference has been made to that in the statement addressed to the House to-day? In the Treaty of Washington all the proceedings of the Arbitrators are sketched out with a definite time for every step which they are to take. By the 3rd Article the written or printed Case of each of the two parties is to be delivered to each of the Arbitrators within a period not exceeding six months from the date of the exchange of the ratifications of the Treaty. By the 4th Article—
    "within four months after the delivery on both sides of the written or printed Case, either party may in like manner deliver in duplicate to each of the said Arbitrators, and to the agent of the other party, a Counter-Case and additional documents."
    Now, these two steps have been taken; and there being, as stated in the Notice of Her Majesty's Government, a misunderstanding between the High Contracting Powers as to the meaning of the Treaty, the Counter Case was put in on the part of Her Majesty's Government at the proper date specified by the 4th Article, two months ago. The declaration addressed on the 15th of April by Her Majesty's Agent at Geneva to the Arbitrators said—
    "Her Majesty's Government have been for some time past, and still are, in correspondence

    1603
    with the Government of the United States upon this subject, and as this correspondence has not been brought to a final issue, Her Majesty's Government, being desirous, if possible, of proceeding with the reference as to the Claims for direct losses, have thought it proper in the meantime to present to the Arbitrators their Counter Case (which is strictly confined to the claims for direct losses), in the hope that before the time limited in the 5th Article of the Treaty this unfortunate misunderstanding may be removed."
    Well, what is the time limited by the 5th Article?—for here is the hinge and pith of the whole matter, as far as I understand the documents. In the 5th Article it is said that—
    "It shall be the duty of the agent of each party, within two months after the expiration of the time limited for the delivery of the Counter Case on both sides" (that is, in April, as already referred to by me) "to deliver in duplicate to each of the said Arbitrators and to the agent of the other party, a written or printed argument, showing the points and referring to the evidence upon which his Government relies."
    Now, as I understand the statement in the paragraph of that newspaper, the American Government refuse to agree to make a joint proposal to the Arbitrators to adjourn the proceedings, upon the ground—which seems to me to be a just ground—that if it is to be done at all it must be done by a specific Treaty. Then it is suggested on their side, not that no written or printed argument shall be delivered on either side, so that the Arbitrators shall be unable to proceed for want of the thoroughly complete course of documents which the Treaty requires to be submitted to them; but that we shall put in our statement, and ask an adjournment, and the United States Government will then have it in their power, if they choose, to present their statement to the Arbitrators; and, if they do not, the Arbitrators, under the 7th Article of the Treaty, are bound, if possible, to make their decision "within three months from the close of the argument on both sides." As far as we are informed, therefore, the position of the case is this—that we are to take every step without any counter-stipulation on the part of the United States that they will go along with us in this; and then, when we have put in our counter statement, we shall be really at their mercy whether or not the business is to go on. I, for one, say that if all these transactions had appeared throughout to have been conducted in a perfectly open and above-board manner, and there had been
    1604
    nothing behind, and no suspicion of want of candid and ingenuous dealing between the negotiators, it might have been worth while to contend that this course was the right one to take. But it cannot be forgotten that a strong and a prevailing impression exists in the mind of Parliament, and also in the mind of the country, that there has not been perfectly open, candid, and ingenuous dealing in this matter with our Government. That should make us extremely careful and cautious that no single step should be authorized by this House, or be permitted to the Government, which would leave us at the mercy of the Government of the United States to go on or not with the Case submitted to the Arbitrators.
    MR. GORDON: If I understand the Prime Minister aright, he made a statement which must naturally cause considerable alarm. It was, as I gathered it, to this effect—that the proceedings might go on with reference to the other branches of the matter in dispute than the Indirect Claims. [Mr. GLADSTONE dissented.] I am glad to find that I am wrong as to that. [Mr. GLADSTONE: Hear, hear!] I will, therefore, not trouble the House further than to express my hearty concurrence with the views expressed by the last speaker.
    MR. G. BENTINCK: I should have been glad to hear that everything connected with this Treaty had come to an untimely end. The right hon. Member for Buckinghamshire (Mr. Disraeli) expressed himself as being greatly alarmed at the conduct of the Government, and at the language used by the right hon. Gentleman at its head; but I may inform him that upon more than one occasion I have been at least as much alarmed at his own proceedings when he was himself in office. It appears to me that there is no ground for a conflict between the two sides of the House on this question, because there is between them what I may term a community of error. Both sides of the House have sanctioned the principle of Arbitration in the settlement of International disputes, which I regard as a great and fatal mistake, and nobody will venture to say that both sides are not equally responsible for the difficulties in which we find ourselves placed in consequence of our having accepted that principle. In the only debate upon this subject to which I have reason

    1605
    to refer, which took place just before the close of the last Session, while various objections were raised to the conduct of the Government, no exception whatever was taken to the Treaty being based upon the principle of Arbitration. The right hon. Member for North Staffordshire (Sir Charles Adderley), who was almost the only speaker on this side of the House on that occasion, although he took exception to the acts of the Government, did not utter a single word against the principle of Arbitration. I must protest against that principle, which I regard as lowering to the honour, the dignity, and the interest of this country. The position we occupy in consequence of our having adopted that principle is not that which a great and powerful country ought to be placed in. We ought not to place our honour and our wealth at the mercy of any description of arbitration. If this country is not sufficiently respected abroad, and does not sufficiently respect itself to be able to decide what concerns its own honour and what is due to its own character with respect to its obligations, it is no longer worthy to occupy the position of a great country. Holding this belief, I regard the fact of our having submitted the American Claims to arbitration as most lowering to the honour and dignity of this country. If I were to hear from the right hon. Gentleman at the head of the Government that it is probable that there will be considerable delay in the negotiations connected with this Treaty I should hail the announcement as good news, as showing that we have at all events obtained a respite in the matter.
    VISCOUNT MAHON: The only part of the most unsatisfactory explanation which has been given by the right hon. Gentleman which is in the least degree satisfactory is that in which he promises that the whole of the Papers connected with the negotiations respecting the Supplemental Article shall be placed upon the Table of the House. It is, at all events, some comfort to know that we shall not be left in profound ignorance of what has been done in this matter for the next eight months. It would not be right that the Government should protract their negotiations for another eight months without laying those Papers on the Table of the House; and, therefore, I must express a hope that the Papers and despatches relating
    1606
    to this Treaty will be laid on the Table of the House before next Saturday.
    MR. GOLDNEYsaid, although he had listened with the greatest attention to the explanations that had just been given by the right hon. Gentleman at the head of Her Majesty's Government, he had failed to collect from them what was the exact position in which they stood at the present moment with regard to the Supplemental Treaty and to the Arbitration at Geneva. About a week ago the right hon. Gentleman informed the House that there was no dispute about the latter portion of the Supplemental Article, and that the whole of the discussion then going on had reference to the early part of it, which formed the consideration for the latter portion of the Article being agreed to. It seemed to him from this new despatch of Earl Granville that that matter must have gone off altogether, and that new negotiations had been commenced for securing a further and distinct consideration of the Treaty. The Prime Minister had said that the latter portion of the article in The Daily News, containing a part of the despatch from Mr. Fish, did not conclude the transaction. He wished to know whether the negotiation now going on was entirely dependent upon the extension of time sought for; and whether if that extension of time were not acceded to, they were to consider that the other negotiations for the completion of the Supplemental Article had failed altogether?
    SIR JAMES ELPHINSTONE: The House is under a great obligation to the hon. Member for Waterford (Mr. Osborne) for having raised this discussion. We have waited patiently for five months for some definite explanations on this subject, while the Government have gone on staggering like drunken men from one difficulty to another. I ask, are such men fit to continue these negotiations? ["Move!"] It is not for me to move in this matter. If hon. Members opposite wish to move they can do so for themselves. I repeat the question, whether the right hon. Gentleman who has landed us in a difficulty from which he cannot extricate us is capable of carrying these negotiations to a proper conclusion? I deny that he is capable of doing so. If he is permitted further to regulate our course in this matter we shall find ourselves in-

    1607
    volved in an Arbitration with the whole of these Indirect Claims hanging over our heads. The Americans are making use of the Government of this country for their own political purposes. The Treaty was nothing more than a stock-jobbing transaction on the other side of the water, and our Government have been duped into negotiating this Treaty with men who are not fit to be negotiated with. I can recollect negotiations going on with America ever since 1814, and the result of all of them has been that they never came to anything unless the Americans had everything their own way. We have been duped on every occasion. When we went forward the Americans went back, and when we went back they came forward. Our best course is to stand still and to throw this Treaty overboard altogether. Having got rid of this Treaty, let us next year begin negotiations afresh, actuated by that good feeling which every one of us has for America. [A laugh.] Oh, you may have a perfectly good feeling towards a man, and yet not let him make a fool of you. Let us, when the Presidential election is over, send over to America a few wise men, who will be able to settle the question to be submitted to the Arbitrators in a couple of days. In conclusion, I beg to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister whether the Arbitrators have any right or title at all under the Treaty to adjourn the consideration of the American Claims for any period?
    SIR GEORGE JENKINSON, who was received with cries of "Divide!" said, I do not think that hon. Members opposite have any right to object to those who sit on this side of the House saying a few words on this important subject, after we have remained silent with reference to it during the last five months. In common courtesy they ought to allow some independent Members on this side of the House to express their views on the matter. This is not a party question—it is a national one. How long are the honour and the interests of the country to be made a stalking-horse for the political interest of the President of the United States? I rise to ask what will become of the Canadian guarantee in the event of the negotiations falling through? Lord Russell, when Foreign Secretary, at the time of the escape of the Alabama, insisted that we
    1608
    were not liable for any losses or damage consequent on the escape of that vessel; but we have now admitted our liability for the direct losses, and the Prime Minister has admitted our liability for the money expended by America for cruisers in pursuit of the Alabama and her consorts. We have made an apology for injuries which we never committed, and we are now to compensate Canada for Fenian raids committed by American citizens by guaranteeing her a loan of £2,500,000. The Americans peremptorily refused to recognize those damages in the Treaty, and we instantly yielded. The Prime Minister now says no difference exists between the two Governments as to the Supplemental Article. Why, then, is it not concluded? We have shown the Ministry the utmost forbearance for five months, yet after wasting that period they ask for eight months more, on the plea that the good sense of the two parties is sure to lead to an arrangement. I do not, however, see any certainty of a settlement being come to at the end of that time. If we give the American Government eight months' delay, it will be made use of for political purposes in the Presidential election, and if Parliament is prorogued without a distinct arrangement we may be committed during the Recess to something even worse than the Treaty, so that "the last state of that man will be worse than the first." If the Government are determined to conclude a Treaty coûte que coûte, the sooner the thing is at an end the better.
    LORD JOHN MANNERS: I understood the right hon. Gentleman to say that after this phase of the negotiation is concluded, all the Papers will be presented to Parliament; but I did not understand him to promise that they will be presented in time for the House to express an opinion on the wisdom or un-wisdom of postponing the proceedings at Geneva for eight months. I wish, therefore, to ask him, whether he contemplates affording Parliament an opportunity of discussing that particular phase before a decision on the subject is come to between the two Governments?
    MR. WATNEY: The duty of the Government is surely to settle the question of the Indirect Claims before settling what arrangement is to be made for the future. We ought to stand firmly to our

    1609
    position on the former point before attempting to arrange for the future.
    MR. GLADSTONE: As various questions have often been put to me, and one or two constructions placed upon portions of my speech, the House will, perhaps, allow me to answer those questions, though I believe I should not be strictly in order, except by permission. With respect to the observations of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Wiltshire (Sir George Jenkinson), he stated that he would put a question to me; but I did not understand him to put any question to me in the sense that is commonly understood. [Sir GEORGE JENKINSON: I asked, what would become of the Canadian Treaty if the negotiations fall through?] That is a question which, I believe, I have already answered in reply to the right hon. Gentleman opposite (Mr. Disraeli). I think I stated distinctly that, in case of an adjournment of the proceedings at Geneva, our opinion is that all the other proceedings connected with the Treaty would and should go forward just as if no adjournment had taken place, and just as if the sittings of the Arbitrators at Geneva were to be continued. With regard to what has fallen from the hon. Gentleman the Member for Portsmouth (Sir James Elphinstone), he has asked me whether the Arbitrators had power under the Treaty to adjourn. Sir, it is the opinion of both the Governments, and of those, I presume, by whom they are both advised—certainly of those by whom Her Majesty's Government are advised—that the Arbitrators have a power to adjourn as a body charged with the transaction of important business. With regard to the general observations of the hon. Member, this is not the place for me to resent them, or even to reply to them further than to say this—that we have from the very commencement of this matter marked out to ourselves a path perfectly clear, and from that path we have never deviated, and shall not deviate. In my opinion, the greatest error—the greatest crime against the country and against the trust with which we are charged—of which we could be guilty, would be if we were to allow ourselves to be goaded and stung by accusations of incompetence—however just or unjust they may be I will not inquire—into deviating by one hair's-breadth from that course.
    1610
    Our business is to act in this matter according to our conscience and convictions, perfectly irrespective of charges of that kind, unless and until these charges be embodied in the vote of an authority to which we are bound to defer; and if that occasion arises, we shall know, Sir, the duty which is incumbent upon us. The hon. Member for Chippenham (Mr. Goldney) complains that, after using every mental effort, he cannot obtain a clear view of the situation from the statement I have made to the House. I do not wonder at that. I professed to give him a view which should be clear as far as it went; but it is not possible for me to give any explanation that can be full or satisfactory to the House, or that can clearly exhibit the whole case until the Papers are laid upon the Table, and Gentlemen have had an opportunity of examining them for themselves. The hon. Member, I am sure, will agree with me that it would be a great mistake if I were to attempt to give such a view as that in the absence of the Papers. It would hardly be fair towards the Gentlemen whom I address, or towards other parties, particularly as the Papers, when they are in the hands of Members, will not be very difficult to master, so far, I hope, as their nature is concerned. With respect to the specific question which the hon. Gentleman put to me, I will answer it with perfect clearness. I stated that we had failed within the time at our command to bring to a conclusion the communications on the subject of the Supplemental Treaty; that communications were still going on with respect to the question of adjournment, and in answer to the hon. Gentleman, with respect to that question only, from the present time—that is to say, from the day on which I speak until Saturday next. The noble Lord opposite (Viscount Mahon) has adverted to the delay in the production of the Papers. When I spoke I had in my mind that we should be able to lay the Papers on the Table by the end of the present week, so that they should be in the hands of Members at the very commencement of the next week, and that it should be possible for them, on a very early day, to raise any question they thought fit with regard to them. The noble Lord the Member for Leicestershire (Lord John Manners) has asked me specifically whether, before coming

    1611
    to any arrangement about an adjournment of the proceedings, we will give the House an opportunity of pronouncing judgment on that adjournment. I cannot give any such promise. With respect to those matters in which the honour and interests of the country are vitally concerned, the case might be different; and the House knows that the Government had freely engaged that the Supplemental Treaty, which they hoped to form within the given time, and which would have contained a permanent engagement, should be made known to the House of Commons immediately upon its being signed. With respect, however, to the question of adjournment, it would be quite impossible to conduct negotiations with foreign Governments if we were to engage to lay before the House every statement of that kind for its consideration before we bound ourselves to its adoption. I am obliged to the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for the University of Glasgow (Mr. Gordon) for indicating to me a misapprehension which possessed his mind, because if that misapprehension can occur to one of so much knowledge and intelligence as himself, it probably has occurred to many others. I never intended for one moment—nor has any Member of the Government at any time intended for one moment—to leave it to be supposed that we could be parties to proceeding with the Arbitration upon the Direct Claims, until and unless the question relating to the Indirect Claims should have been satisfactorily disposed of. To exclude the Indirect Claims from the consideration of the Arbitrators is, in our view, an absolute condition to our proceeding to Arbitration with respect to the Direct Claims. I will venture to remove a misapprehension from the mind of the hon. Member for West Cumberland (Mr. Percy Wyndham). The hon. Member said we had admitted in the Treaty that certain descriptions of losses—I have no doubt he referred to the expenses incurred in the capture of vessels—were Direct Claims, and a matter on which the Arbitrators might make their award. That is not so. The only admission we have made is that Claims in that respect may be made and be argued before the Arbitrators; but we are equally free to argue against such Claims, and we are pretty sanguine that
    1612
    the decision of the Arbitrators will be in our favour. [Mr. PERCY WYNDHAM: They are classed as Direct Claims.] That is perfectly true; they are classed as Direct Claims by America. That is the extent of our admission, which is an important admission—I do not disguise it. The extent of our admission is this—that we cannot take to these Claims for expenditure in keeping cruisers for capturing vessels the same kind of objection that we make to the Indirect Claims—namely, that they are not within the province of the Tribunal. But, as the Treaty has admitted them, we argue that they are totally unfit matter to be made the subject of pecuniary award. The only other misapprehension was that of the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Bouverie), who feared that we might be drawn unawares into a procedure on these Indirect Claims before the Arbitrators, notwithstanding the measures we have taken. All I can say is, that it has been the whole object of our endeavours to prevent that; and to that prevention we are absolutely bound. If we were to fall into such an error, we should, no doubt, receive the censure of Parliament; but that is a danger of which we entertain no apprehension, believing that we have in our own hands the perfect means of preventing its realization.
    MR. DISRAELI: The right hon. Gentleman has not made his meaning perfectly clear. Assuming that at the end of eight months—if the adjournment takes place—the Supplemental Treaty should not be negotiated, am I to understand that all the other portions of the Treaty of Washington will be advanced to maturity, and carried into execution?
    MR. GLADSTONE: I think the legitimate bearing of my declaration is that the considerations of maturity will arise as these questions come to be dealt with practically; but I am not able to say what the effect will be. If they are absolutely excluded, I do not see how they can be introduced. I can only say—in as far as I can give an opinion, and if I must give an opinion—that if an adjournment take place at Geneva, that adjournment, ipso facto, will have no effect on the other proceedings under the Treaty, and those proceedings may go forward as if no adjournment had taken place.
    MR. DISRAELI: The right hon. Gentleman will understand that I have no wish in pressing these questions, except that the House should obtain the clearest possible idea of the true position of the question. Am I to understand this—that in this controversy respecting the Indirect Claims we are to forfeit all inducements to the United States to forego these claims by allowing them to accomplish all their objects, although that question may be unsettled?
    MR. GLADSTONE: The question involves an opinion, which the right hon. Gentleman seems to entertain, that the American Government has great objects to attain by means of those portions of the Treaty which are not referred to the Tribunal at Geneva, and that it is in consideration of attaining those objects that they are anxious to go to Geneva. Now, so far as we can judge from the information we have received, or from the language of the American Government, we conclude that the American Government are of exactly an opposite opinion, and consider that it is we, not they, who have an interest in pushing forward those portions of the Treaty which are not subjects of the present negotiation. They consider it is we, not they, who have an interest in carrying them forward and in bringing them to an end.
    MR. W. M. TORRENS: I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman a question arising out of the answer that he has just given. Has not the American Government, during this long period of negotiations, steadily taken a tone that implies that they require an assurance that the whole of the three great questions submitted in the course of the negotiations shall be settled if they agree especially on the San Juan Boundary question? I ask the question, because I have reason to believe that the American Government—not yesterday, but at various times, and in the most express manner—have signified that they will not agree to waive what they consider the advantages of the San Juan Boundary unless that they believed that we were going to settle with them fully and completely the Alabama Claims.
    MR. GLADSTONE: It is extremely difficult to follow all the points that have been raised. The American Government has contended that the whole of the Treaty must stand or fall together, and
    1614
    I do not think I should be justified in going further. They consider it is we, and not they, who have a special interest in pushing forward and carrying to completion all those parts of the Treaty which are not in Arbitration.
    MR. PERCY WYNDHAM: Is it not a fact that the Americans have fished in the waters of the Dominion—in Newfoundland and Prince Edward Island—and does not the equivalent for that depend upon the ratification of the Treaty?
    VISCOUNT ROYSTON: I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he can give an explicit promise to the House that he will put them in possession of all the Papers relating to this question before a certain date?
    MR. GLADSTONE: I hope by the end of the present week—as I have already stated—to be able to produce all that can be produced according to the forms of the House. The question of the hon. Member (Mr. Percy Wyndham) is purely argumentative, and he had better put his Question on the Paper for my hon. Friend the Under Secretary for the Colonies to answer.
    MR. GREGORY: I understand—and have understood all along—that the question of the Canadian Fisheries was always a great point made by the American Government, and a stipulation is contained in that agreement upon which they insist. And that leads me to a consideration connected with the parts of the Treaty which are proposed to be carried into effect. I understand that the equivalent to be given by us to the Canadians is a guarantee of £2,500,000. Now, at all events during eight months the American people will have the benefit of the stipulation with respect to the fisheries of Canada, and during that time the Canadians will raise money for the construction of railways on the faith of our guarantee. Suppose the Treaty goes off, the position of Canada will be a very different one from what it would be under the Treaty. In the meantime, we shall have involved ourselves in a liability of £2,500,000, and after that money is raised it will be impossible to get rid of that liability.
    Motion, "That this House do now adjourn," by leave, withdrawn.

  EDUCATION SCOTLAND BILL— [BILL 31.]
  (The Lord Advocate, Mr. Secretary Bruce, Mr. William Edward Forster.)

  COMMITTEE. [Progress 7th June.]
  Bill considered in Committee.
  (In the Committee.)

  IV.—FINANCE.
  Clause 50 (School fees).
  MR. COLLINSexpressed a hope that, considering the lateness of the hour, the Lord Advocate would promise the House not to proceed further to-day than Clause 63, and not to go into the subsequent clauses, which deal with the religious part of the question. Two hours would not be sufficient for their discussion.
  THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, he could not at present make such a promise as the hon. Gentleman desired.
  MR. ORR EWINGsaid, that before the clause was agreed to he wished to make an appeal to the Lord Advocate with reference to the discussion which had taken place on Friday last at half-past 6 o'clock with regard to the Amendment of the hon. Member for Edinburgh University (Dr. Lyon Playfair). The Amendment was then lost; but he trusted, nevertheless, that the Government would be disposed to adopt it. The Lord Advocate had stated that he did not look upon the subject raised by the Amendment as a vital question, and at first the right hon. and learned Gentleman appeared ready to adopt it; but subsequently, finding that he could command a majority, he had gone to a division, and had been successful in defeating the Amendment. Notwithstanding, however, the opinion of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, in Scotland the question was regarded as a vital one. All the schoolmasters had a right to their own fees in Scotland, and the proposal of the Government, as contained in the Bill, was simply driving hard terms with the schoolmasters, who, it should be recollected, would have a very powerful influence on the education of the country. He regarded the schoolmasters, for this reason, as the most important part of the schools, and consequently, when he advocated their interests, he believed he was forwarding the interests of the scholars. The system they had hitherto adopted in Scotland had been a most excellent one; and, partly in consequence
  1616
  of the school grants, and partly by the school fees, it had worked most admirably. It had always been stated that hon. Members on that side of the House had misrepresented the opinions of the people of Scotland; but it was a significant circumstance that of the 52 Scotch representatives who took part in the division on Friday, 28 voted for the Amendment proposed by his hon. Friend, and 24 against it. Moreover, three out of the latter were Englishmen, who knew very little about the subject. Besides, that number included six Members of the Government. He thought that, for the future well-being of the education of their children, the Scotch Members ought to ask for some concessions to the general feeling of Scotland, and he hoped the Government would, on the Report being brought up, introduce an Amendment similar to that which his hon. Friend had proposed. It was perfectly evident that it was the intention of his right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate that the school boards should not only appoint head teachers, but all the persons engaged in teaching in the schools. He trusted, however, that the head schoolmasters would still be permitted to nominate their assistants, as otherwise a state of confusion would, in all probability, ensue. He hoped, in conclusion, that his right hon. and learned Friend would make some concessions to their very reasonable demands.
  Clause agreed to.
  Clause 51 (Teachers houses).
  MR. GORDONrose to move an Amendment. He was unable to understand upon what grounds the schoolmasters were to be deprived of their rights which they lad enjoyed from the earliest times. He denied that the doctrines of political economy were applicable to the case of education, and pointed out that the present Bill was brought in because the supply of education was not equal to the demand for it. He did not see why they should depart from existing rules, unless it was with a view to obliterate all that had hitherto worked so well in the management of the parish schools. He therefore moved the addition of the words of which he had given Notice.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 19, line 32, to leave out from the word "during" to the word "convenient," in line 36, in order to insert the words "and it shall be the

  1617
  duty of the School Board in every parish to provide a house and garden in such places as they judge convenient, or to allow a reasonable sum in lieu thereof, for every principal teacher; the extent of the accommodation to be provided, or the sum to be allowed in lieu thereof, being subject to the determination of the Scotch Education Department, whose decision shall be final."—(Mr. Gordon.)
  MR. M'LARENprotested against the assumption that this was a question which only affected the schools in counties. The burdens imposed rested mainly on the towns, and of the higher class of day schools there was not one in a county. There were 11 in Royal burghs and two in Parliamentary burghs, and all that was proposed in the Bill was that there should be a common collection in respect of all of them. That had been characterized as an extraordinary proposition, and as one inconsistent with the character and usage of those schools; but he begged to remind the Committee that such was the practice at the present moment in the High School of Edinburgh. In fact, every town or district had its own usage, and the management of these matters ought to be left to the common-sense of the persons concerned. It was proposed by one hon. Member that the salary of schoolmasters in the towns should not be less than £50 or more than £80, and that was said to be in the interests of the teachers, but he maintained that it was against them.
  MR. CRAUFURDsaid, the hon. Member was speaking on the wrong clause. The clause before the Committee related only to teachers' houses, or a money payment in lieu of such houses.
  THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, that the Bill provided that it should be within the discretion of the school board to provide gardens, and when necessary they would have the power to provide houses. The object of the Amendment, however, if he caught the meaning of it aright, was to make it compulsory upon the school board in every parish to provide a house and garden for every teacher under the board. [Mr. GORDON: Every principal teacher.] How could anyone say—"No matter how inconvenient or unsuitable it may be to provide a house and garden for the teacher, it shall be the bounden duty of the school board to provide them." That was the literal meaning of the hon. and learned Gentleman's words. The principle of the Bill on this point was, it might be necessary or it
  1618
  might be convenient to provide schoolmasters' houses and gardens in such places as they thought suitable; and that if they agreed it was necessary, or, short of necessary, convenient, that a certain remuneration be given instead of the house, power was given to do it. The hon. and learned Gentleman had stated on a former occasion that he intended to make it obligatory upon the school board to provide a house and garden for each teacher; but now he corrected himself by saying "principal teacher."
  MR. GORDONcalled attention to the words "or to allow a reasonable sum in lieu thereof."
  THE LORD ADVOCATEasked what was the use of splitting the money paid to the teacher into parts, and saying "So much is for your salary, and so much in lieu of your house?" Such a proposition almost bordered on the verge of nonsense. With regard to the concession asked for by the hon. Member for Dumbarton (Mr. Orr Ewing) he begged to inform him that he had no intention of acceding to anything of the kind.
  MR. ORR EWINGsaid, the object of his hon. and learned Friend (Mr. Gordon) was to perpetuate in Scotland the system of giving a house and garden to the principal teacher; and with that he most heartily sympathized. They wanted to make the schoolmaster as comfortable as possible, and they desired he should have a house and garden near the school, and feel himself an important man in the district. If they made provision of that kind for him, they would not only raise his status, but promote the interests of the pupils, and therefore they wished to perpetuate the system of parochial schools in Scotland which had been imitated by many of the Free Church schools. He thought everyone not influenced by party motives would support this Amendment. The hon. Member for Edinburgh (Mr. M'Laren), who had been shut up within the walls of that beautiful city, could not be expected to evince the same sympathy in this matter as country Members; but he must be aware of the importance of having as schoolmaster a man who felt that he was respected and cared for.
  SIR EDWARD COLEBROOKErecommended that the clause be altered so as to make it compulsory on the school boards to maintain the houses and gar-

  1619
  dens attached to the schools which already existed.
  MR. SINCLAIR AYTOUNwished to ask the Lord Advocate whether this clause did not give power to the school boards, after parish schools were given them, to sell those schools, or let them for purposes other than those of education?
  SIR GRAHAM MONTGOMERYthought that the present school-houses should be maintained, and that they should not be devoted to other purposes.
  MR. CRAUFURDsaid, that the Amendment of the hon. and learned Gentleman (Mr. Gordon) did not alter the clause, but simply restricted the provision with regard to schools to parishes. He hoped the Lord Advocate would adhere to the clause as it stood.
  MR. GORDONsaid, he would, if allowed, withdraw his Amendment and propose it again in an amended form, in which shape he hoped it would receive the support of Scotch Members.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment moved, in line 32, to leave out from "during" to "convenient," line 36, and insert—
  "And it shall be the duty of the school board in every parish to provide a house and garden in such place as they judge convenient, or to allow a reasonable sum in lieu thereof for every principal teacher—the extent of the accommodation to be provided, or the sum to be allowed in lieu thereof, being subject to the determination of the Scotch Education Department, whose decision shall be final."—(Mr. Gordon.)
  SIR ROBERT ANSTRUTHERpointed out that there was one feature in the hon. and learned Gentleman's Amendment which had not been noticed at all—namely, that it put vast power in the hands of the Scotch Education Department. He expressed a hope that the clause would remain as it stood in the Bill, as he considered that the matter should be settled between the school master and the local board, because the latter would be fully aware of the importance of doing their best for the schoolmaster.
  THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, he could not agree to the proposition of the hon. Baronet the Member for Lanarkshire (Sir Edward Colbrooke) that it should be made a statutory duty of the school board to maintain the school-houses; because, although it might be highly convenient to maintain them in
  1620
  some cases, it might be quite the reverse in others; so that he considered it would be best to leave a certain amount of discretion to be used by the school board. Where there were schoolmasters' residences and gardens in the rural districts it was quite certain that the house would be kept up and devoted to its proper use, while no doubt the school boards would exercise their judgment in the matter in the interests of the districts. But there might be cases in which it would be desirable to use the house and garden as a school-room and play-ground. The houses and gardens were to be vested in the school boards, for the purpose of enabling them to carry out their duties as defined by the statute; and they could not do away with them except as laid down by Act of Parliament. As he had said before, there could be no doubt that in all cases where it was desirable the existing houses would be maintained.
  Question put, "That the words 'during the continuance in office of the teachers now in possession thereof, and' stand part of the Clause."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 193; Noes 111: Majority 82.
  MR. GORDONmoved to add at the end of clause 51—
  "The School Board shall also pay out of the school fund, and by way of addition to any sums payable out of the Parliamentary grant to each principal schoolmaster or schoolmistress, an annual salary, to be fixed on the occasion of each appointment, of an amount (unless the Scotch Education Department shall in any case otherwise determine) not less than fifty pounds nor more than one hundred pounds in the case of a schoolmaster in a burgh school, and not less than thirty-five pounds nor more than eighty pounds in the case of a school in a landward parish, and not less than twenty pounds nor more than forty pounds in the case of any schoolmistress. The schoolmaster or schoolmistress shall likewise be entitled to the interest or annual produce of any bequest or endowment for his or her behoof."
  THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, that, as the question had already been once decided, he must decline to repeat the arguments which he then urged against the proposal.
  MR. GORDONdenied that the Amendment was similar to the one which had already been rejected, because the former Amendment involved the question of fees under the Parliamentary grant as well as of salaries. There had been a similar

  1621
  proposal in the Bill introduced last year.
  MR. MACFIEsaid, he should support the Amendment unless he heard a very strong argument from the Lord Advocate against it. He believed the hon. and learned Gentleman by bringing it forward was doing good service to the schoolmasters and to education generally.
  MR. ORR EWINGsupported the Amendment, but thought there was little use of going to a division, but to trust that better terms might be obtained for teachers in "another place," where their services might be more appreciated.
  Amendment negatived.
  Clause agreed to.

  V.—TEACHERS.
  Clause 52 (Teachers in office before the passing of the Act. Teachers appointed after passing of Act).
  DR. LYON PLAYFAIRmoved, in page 20, line 5, after "schools," leave out to end of clause, and insert—
  "And every appointment shall be during the pleasure of the School Board, who shall assign to them such salaries as they think fit: Provided, that the principal teacher of every public school, in addition to such fees and such sum from the Parliamentary Grant as may be agreed on between the School Board and such teacher, shall receive annually from the local rates not less than ten pounds if his certificate of competency, as hereinafter required, is of the lowest class or degree, and not less than fifty pounds if his certificate is of the highest class or degree, and not less than such sum above ten pounds as shall be prescribed in the minutes of the Scotch Education Department, as hereinafter provided, if his certificate is of an intermediate class or degree."
  The hon. Gentleman said: The object of this Amendment is to preserve for Scotland the advantages of the certificate system which it at present possesses. I must remind the Committee that, though both English and Scotch inspected schools are examined by the Revised Code, Scotch schools are not paid by it, but are still paid and governed by the old certificate Code. Scotland has hitherto resisted the application of the Revised Code, and has as yet not the least inclination to go under its yoke. Government payments to schools in Scotland are made in proportion to the class of certificate which the teachers hold. These payments vary from £15 on the lowest grade, to £30 on the highest. The system, at the present moment, in Scotland is this—Suppose the managers of a school desire a teacher, they apply to the Committee of
  1622
  Privy Council for his services, and the Committee make it a condition that the managers shall contribute an equal payment by subscriptions, and guarantee a like amount from fees. Thus, if the teacher's certificates carry a payment of £20 from the Government, the school managers must provide £20 by subscriptions, and, in most cases, must guarantee a third sum of £20 by fees. That is the actual code ruling of Scotch inspected schools at the present moment, and no one alleges that it works badly. In fact, examination by the Revised Code proves that Scotch schools have a considerably larger percentage of passes than English schools. Now, what I propose by this Amendment simply is to retain for Scotland the advantages of its present certificate system, without preventing the Government from adopting the Revised Code in future, for I bow to the inevitable. My proposal is nothing more than that ratepayers, or their elected representatives, should place themselves in the position of existing school managers; for, as they assume their functions, they ought to contribute to the salaries of teachers, as school managers have always hitherto done without a murmur. The Lord Advocate will no doubt say that my proposal is only a minimum salary under another name. No doubt it is. It is a minimum salary, not on a dead level for all teachers, whether good or bad; but one dependent for its amount on the varying qualifications of teachers. Why should we destroy the certificate system in Scotland merely to please the Committee of Council's ideas of uniformity? I do not ask for one penny from Imperial taxation. I only ask for power for the Scotch ratepayers to apply the inevitable payment of the rates in the direction which past experience has shown to be most productive in results. Nor will this mode of payment add one shilling to the rates, for these must be forthcoming to an amount which will supplement the fees so as to equal the Government grant, otherwise no grants will be given. To understand this, let me remind the House that the Scotch Commissioners have shown that average attendances in each country school in Scotland amount to about 70 children, and that their average fees are 8s. 8d. Now, the cost of education is 30 s. per child, so that the expense of our typical school is £105. To meet this the school,

  1623
  if entirely successful, may win the maximum of 15 s. per head from Government grants, or £52; but, as a condition for obtaining this sum, it must provide an equal sum from fees and rates. But the fees are only £30, so that the inevitable rates must be £22. Now, I should be exceedingly satisfied with the working of my Amendment if it produced an average sum of £22 on the certificates. So that it is obvious the rates need not be increased by a single shilling, and the current expenses, beyond the teacher's remuneration, might be met by an imposition of the school board upon the fees and the Government grant. Besides, the scheme, as I propose it, would come very gradually into operation. It would not apply at all to the present occupants of parochial schools, nor would it extend to denominational schools. It would, therefore, be of very gradual introduction, and would thus give ample time to show its effects before they became very extended. I hope the Committee will clearly grasp this fact—that the Amendment does not operate at all on Imperial taxation, and that it does not add a shilling to local taxation, but only directs that into old channels which experience has proved to be very useful to the interests of the country. Who, then, objects to the proposed Amendment? Not the schoolmasters; for they have petitioned in its favour. Not the ratepayers; for they have sent up no Petitions against it, and various important bodies have petitioned in its favour. But, though I have not yet heard of any public objections, I know the official objections which are likely to be brought forward against the adoption of this Amendment. Thus, we may be told that the scheme will be to the disadvantage of teachers, by limiting the area of selection of those who obtain a high class of certificate, with a proportionately high amount fixed on it. I may here mention that my very highest sum is £50 less than the average fixed salary of parochial teachers at the present moment, and that the lowest is the paltry sum of £10. What reason is there for saying that a high certificate carrying a higher payment will prevent a teacher being in demand? None that I know of, except that it may be convenient to use it for the purpose of to-day's debate. Experience is all the other way, and of that there is ample, for Scotland enjoys the
  1624
  certificate system at present. Now, it is well known that the active demand at the present time is for teachers with highly-paid certificates, and the lowest demand is for teachers with cheap certificates. If to the results of this experience it is replied—"That may be true at the present time, with school managers of culture and intelligence, but it may not be so with local boards elected by ratepayers," then I say that is a condemnation of the scheme of local boards proposed by this Bill. The Lord Advocate ought to be the last man to doubt them, for he has always contended that they will be well qualified to fulfil every duty of school managers. If the point of the objection be, that a highly-qualified teacher has a smaller number of situations open to him than an inferior teacher, that is a truism applicable to all such cases, The Professor of an University has fewer places open to him than the teacher of a secondary school, and the latter than the teacher of an elementary school. But this fact only operates disadvantageously, when there is a greater supply of highly-qualified teachers than there is a demand for them. That is not the case with our Scotch elementary schools at present, and it will be the faulty operation of this Bill if it be so in the future. Highly-certificated teachers are in greater demand than supply. Besides, as I have already mentioned, the system is not rigid but elastic. Both the fees and the grant go into the school fund, out of which the local board can readily adjust the conditions of the teacher's remuneration. Recollect, that I am not proposing a new thing, but only desiring to maintain the present certificate system, which has worked so well, both in the interests of schools and of their teachers. Surely a class of men are generally alive to their own interests, and when they want a continuance of the system, we need not be afraid that we are doing them an injury. It is not for the teacher's interest, but for the public interest that I press this Amendment. Under the English Revised Code the qualifications of teachers have much deteriorated. It is actually the case that, before 1857, a pupil teacher passed a higher examination than a principal teacher now requires to pass. Such a deterioration in our teachers would be fatal to Scoth education, because it is the custom in Scotch schools to teach secondary subjects of

  1625
  instruction. By maintaining the certificate system, with payments augmenting according to qualifications, you induce the teachers to study higher subjects, and there is little fear that when they possess the knowledge they will refuse to impart it. Thus you will prevent that lowering of the qualifications of teachers which has within the last few weeks been specially reported upon by the Royal Commission on Science. After that damaging Report, the qualifications of English teachers must be raised. I now ask you not to allow the qualifications of Scotch teachers to be lowered by a similar operation of the Revised Code, and thus to render it unnecessary for some Royal Commission, 10 years hence, to remonstrate with the Government for having allowed them to sink so low. My right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Advocate, in his anticipatory answer of my speech last Friday, told us that we have the security that local boards will desire the continuance of higher subjects in schools, and will therefore select highly qualified men to teach them. If the constitution of the local boards insured the same class of men upon them as at present, no doubt this would be the case. Hitherto they have consisted of heritors and ministers, both classes having been educated in public schools and Universities. These men of culture and intelligence appreciated the value of higher subjects, and liked to see them in the schools under their care. But what security have you that the new boards will have members of an equal amount of education? In large towns this may be so; in small towns and country districts it is not probable that the ratepayers will secure members of equal culture. There has been already some experience on this subject in Scotland, and I will describe it, especially as I am about to quote the words of the Lord Advocate's own secretary, when he was Assistant Commissioner to the country districts under the Scotch Education Commission. Mr. Sellar says in his official Report—
  "It is no exaggeration to say that from the most southern part of Scotland to John o'Groat's we were met with the same outcry—'Save us from local boards.'"
  He shows that 48 per cent of the schools managed by local boards were unsatisfactory; and he continues—
  "The real worth of a teacher is not the point that is solely regarded by electing bodies of this
  1626
  kind. They know that they are not qualified to decide upon a teacher's merits, and they fly off on some course which they think they can understand."
  Possibly, by this time, the Lord Advocate may have converted his secretary from his former opinions to those more consonant with his own; but I hold by the experience and fresh impressions of the Assistant Commissioner, and think he was right. I agree with him that local boards in country districts, though less so in towns, will require to be educated to their duties, and are not likely, for some time at least, to be good judges of the qualifications of teachers I wish, therefore, to give to the teachers themselves a motive and a stimulus to higher qualifications by maintaining that certificate system under which they now work in Scotland. It will do no one any harm; it does not render more expensive or more complex the central administration; it does not do more than give to the inevitable payment of rates that direction which experience has already proved to be productive of admirable results. It helps to maintain the characteristics of Scotch education, and prevents one uniform Anglicising of our schools, regardless of our national peculiarities formed by the experience of centuries, and which ought not to be thrust aside by the 12 months' experience which England has of a national system. For these reasons, I do hope the Committee will support me in carrying this Amendment, upon which I must divide if it be not accepted by the Government.
  Amendment proposed,
  In page 20, line 5, to leave out from the word "schools" to the end of the Clause, in order to insert the words "and every appointment shall be during the pleasure of the School Board, who shall assign to them such salaries as they think fit: Provided, That the principal teacher of every public school, in addition to such fees and such sum from the Parliamentary Grant as may be agreed on between the School Board and such teacher, shall receive annually from the local rates not less than ten pounds if his certificate of competency, as hereinafter required, is of the lowest class or degree, and not less than fifty pounds if his certificate is of the highest class or degree, and not less than such sum above ten pounds as shall be prescribed in the minutes of the Scotch Education Department, as hereinafter provided, if his certificate is of an intermediate class or degree."—(Dr. Lyon Playfair.)
  THE LORD ADVOCATEsaid, it was certainly due to his hon. Friend, who

  1627
  had paid so much attention to this subject, that he should give his best and most earnest consideration to any Amendment proposed by him. He confessed, however, that he could not give his assent to the Amendment. It seemed to him to be open to those objections which he stated against the proposal of his hon. and learned Friend the Member for the University of Glasgow (Mr. Gordon) on a former occasion. It was also objectionable, as being not only not in favour of, but directly, and very hardly, and even harshly detrimental to schoolmasters; and he was not persuaded that that view was unsound because schoolmasters had petitioned in favour of the Amendment. It did not apply to any existing schoolmasters at all, and he was doubtful whether those who had petitioned in its favour had altogether appreciated it. It regarded candidates for the office of schoolmaster, and provided for degrees in certificates of competency 1st, 2nd, and 3rd—the 1st being the highest. It was the universal experience that masters who had attained the highest certificates were not necessarily in practice the best, the most successful, and most efficient teachers. That was not true with respect to teachers obtaining first class certificates any more than it was true with respect to professional men or men engaged in business, that those who had received the highest honours at school or college were always the most successful in the prosecution of their profession or business. He quite admitted that the probability was that it might be, and that the teacher with a high class certificate would succeed better than a teacher with a low class certificate; but the advantage of a certificate to him was as an introduction and as a recommendation to begin with; but after he had entered upon the office of teacher, he would succeed or fail, obtain a higher or lower remuneration, continue in or leave his employment, according to his success; and it did not at all necessarily depend upon the class of his certificate. Now, this Amendment—unless he quite misread it—created a statutory disability against teachers holding a certificate of a high class, because it rendered it illegal for them to expect employment as teachers upon such terms as they could get, and were willing and anxious to take. Suppose there was a vacancy in the office of teacher in a public school
  1628
  in Scotland, and the school board being able to give a salary of, say, £120 a-year, advertised the vacancy, and invited candidates to bring forward their testimonials. According to the best calculations that could be made, £100 out of the £120 would be contributed by the fees and the grants, leaving only £20 to be paid out of the rates. They could not, therefore, have a first class schoolmaster with a first class certificate. He could not apply for the situation, because he was prohibited by Act of Parliament from taking it, if this Amendment were passed, unless £50 was paid out of the rates. And let him, therefore, be ever so willing and anxious to take the place, and let the board be ever so willing and anxious to have him, he was yet prohibited by law from entering into that contract, and they must take a schoolmaster on a lower certificate, because, to satisfy the condition of the statute as it would stand in this Amendment, £20 out of the rates would only secure a teacher with a lower class certificate. In addition, therefore, to all the evils which would arise from interfering with the just rights of schoolmasters and school boards to make their own bargains, they would have this evil, which he considered would be a monstrous hardship to the teachers, that they would say to him—"We prohibit you from taking any situation unless you can get £50 out of the rates." Upon these grounds he must oppose the Amendment.
  MR. SAMUELSON, as a Member of the Commission which had been referred to, supported the Amendment. If there was to be no value attached to the certificates of the various grades, what was the use of a certificate at all? He hoped the hon. Member would make a stand upon this—that until they were better informed upon the subject, they would not allow the degradation of schoolmasters to proceed.
  MR. M'LARENsaid, he held in his hand a letter from a heritor of a very small parish, the population of which was under 200 souls. There were 15 children at the parish school, and the emoluments of the teacher were £70 a-year, and had applied for an additional £8. He pointed out that in this instance the Amendment would not work beneficially; nor, in another instance, of a parish in the northern counties,

  1629
  which was 60 miles long. There were in this parish 60 schools, and the Amendment would fix an arbitrary high rate for the payment of masters of each one of them.
  MR. CRAUFURDsaid, the Committee had already decided against fixing a minimum salary. This was a proposal to fix a minimum salary, though at greater inconvenience to the teacher and the scholar.
  DR. LYON PLAYFAIR, in reply, said, that in order to meet the cases of the Highland districts, he began with as low a salary as £10. In answer to the Lord Advocate's objection, he contended that the fees and grants hinged on the roughly elastic method of making whatever salaries the school boards liked to have. He should press his Amend to a division.
  MR. GORDONapproved of the Amendment of his hon. Friend, and would give it his vote, although it did not go so far as he could wish.
  Question put, "That the words 'who shall assign to them such salaries or emoluments as they think fit' stand part of the Clause."
  The Committee divided:—Ayes 141; Noes 106: Majority 35.
  Committee report Progress; to sit again upon Thursday.

PARLIAMENT—COUNTS OF THE HOUSE.

  RESOLUTION.
  MR. BOWRINGrose to move—"That every Member taking notice that 40 Members are not present shall do so from his place." The hon. Member observed that the late Speaker stated before the Select Committee on Public Business, which sat last year, that it would be desirable that Notice should be taken that 40 Members were not present in a public manner; and Sir Erskine May also stated that it would be desirable to attach some personal responsibility to the act of taking Notice that 40 Members were not present, and not to have it done furtively, as it were, from behind the Speaker's Chair. He (Mr. Bowring) also quoted an extract from The Illustrated London News of 1860 to show that the present practice was of modern origin—
  Notice taken, that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members not being present,
  House adjourned at a quarter after Nine o'clock.

MINUTES.
PUBLIC BILLS—First Reading—Drainage and Improvement of Lands (Ireland) Supplemental* (142).
Second Reading—Gas and Water Orders Confirmation (No. 2)* (122).
Select Committee—Report—Union of Benefices Act Amendment (No. 139.)
Committee—Report—Metropolitan Commons Supplemental* (115); Public Health (Scotland) Supplemental* (121); Cattle Disease (Ireland) Acts Amendment* (125); Charitable Loan Societies (Ireland)* (124).
Report—Union of Benefices Act Amendment* (12–140); Statute Law Revision* (107).
Third Reading—Local Government Supplemental * (103), and passed.

TREATY OF WASHINGTON.
  TRIBUNAL OF ARBITRATION (GENEVA) THE INDIRECT CLAIMS.

    THE SUPPLEMENTAL ARTICLE.
    ENLARGEMENT OF TIME. STATEMENT.
    EARL GRANVILLE: My Lords, it was at so late an hour last night and so few of your Lordships were present, that I am not sure that all your Lord

    1563
    ships are aware that the noble Lord on the cross-benches (Lord Oranmore and Browne) put to me, after midnight, the Questions of which he had given Notice with regard to the position of the negotiations in reference to the Washington Treaty. I thought that at that hour of the night, and as so few of your Lordships were present, and as the circumstances referred to in those Questions were not quite applicable to the existing state of things, it would be more advisable for me to confine myself on that occasion to a promise of a statement this evening with reference to the position of affairs. My Lords, I have to state that on Saturday last it became perfectly clear that we must fail to ratify in time the Supplemental Article which would have the effect of cancelling the Indirect Claims, on condition of an agreement for the future as to the obligations under which both countries should be bound. It appeared that, on the one hand, the Government of the United States were of opinion that we were hypercritical as to the wording of the agreement; while, on the other hand, we were of opinion that we ought not to agree to words which would not clearly convey what the real meaning of both parties to the agreement was. That being the state of things, and finding it was no longer possible to have the Article ratified in time to send before the Arbitrators at their next meeting, we resolved—acting on a suggestion previously made by the United States—to propose an adjournment, in order to give time for the removal of the remaining difficulties between the two countries. I must now, my Lords, express my surprise and regret that the communication which I made to the American Minister should have been made public in New York almost immediately after its transmission. I spoke to General Schenck on the subject; and, in reply, General Schenck has explained to me that he could not account for the publication, as certainly the proposal had not been communicated to the public by anyone in the American Legation here. The Secretary of the Legation, however, suggested an explanation that might, perhaps, account for it—namely, that my communication had been sent to the United States not in cipher, but en clair; and that in consequence of its having been so sent, it had got into the Press from circumstances over which his Go-
    1564
    vernment had no control. The substance of the proposal is this—that there should be an adjournment of the Arbitration for eight months, under certain reserves and certain conditions in which we should both join. Since the transmission of the proposal we have received a communication from the United States Government respecting the mode in which we proposed the adjournment should be made; and in answer to that we have made a further communication to the United States. I have only to add that to-morrow the Lord Chief Justice, as the Arbitrator for this country; Sir Roundell Palmer, our Counsel; and Lord Tenterden, our Agent, proceed to Geneva. But no inference is to be drawn from this fact:—whatever might occur, we thought it would be more dignified on our part and more courteous, not only to the American, but to the other Arbitrators, that our Counsel and Agent should appear; but they have precise instructions as to the course they are to pursue, and they have full powers for providing, on our part, that there shall be no act whatever which would be a departure from the declarations which Her Majesty's Government have made on the subject of the Indirect Claims.
    LORD CAIRNS: My Lords, your Lordships are so much accustomed in this important matter to surprises—to the expression at one time of the most sanguine hope, and at another to the confession of the most bitter disappointment on the part of Her Majesty's Government—that communications of the kind of that we have just heard have lost the claim of novelty. Before this occasion we have seen that communications which are usually regarded as most secret and sacred, have been issued to newspapers until the disclosures have ceased to surprise. I am inclined to think, however, that but for the disclosures which from time to time have been made in this way we might have been in a still worse position. They have, at all events, however they may have come out, put us in possession of facts with the knowledge of which, as they have occurred, we ought not to grumble; but, my Lords, the information of to-day certainly transcends any which has hitherto come to light during the conduct of these negotiations. It now appears from these "channels of information" that we have

    1565
    made a proposal to adjourn the Arbitration at Geneva for eight months. My Lords, consider for a moment how far that is possible. I want to ask your Lordships, in the first place, what precise object is to be attained, what is supposed to be the utility of an adjournment of this kind? Is the object to decently put an end to that part of the Convention which relates to an Arbitration at Geneva? If so, would it not be better to do so openly and fairly than in this indirect and covert manner? What will be the consequence of adjournment for eight months? What will be the consequence on this side of the Atlantic? Great anxiety; great misgivings from day to day; great uneasiness in respect of the negotiations; great perplexity of telegrams and despatches, and from time to time explanations or partial explanations, such as have hitherto been made to Parliament. All this time the commerce of the country and the financial interests of the country will be disturbed and confused. Those who are most interested in the existence of friendly relations between the two nations will naturally feel anxious and perplexed throughout the whole of this period of adjournment. That will be the result on this side of the Atlantic. And if that will be the consequence in this country, what will be the state of things on the other side of the Atlantic? What the adjournment means is that a "platform" on one side and on the other will be made during the Presidential election of the relations between this country and the United States. Is not that the inevitable consequence? Your Lordships will have observed the tone and temper in which these negotiations have been commented on in the United States. Do not you think that as the Presidential election comes on, it will be the object on one side or on the other to depreciate the policy of the Cabinet of Washington, and that during the election the negotiations will be represented in the various lights in which the contending parties may feel it their interest to place them? Is that a state of things which can be regarded as beneficial to the interests of this country or to our relations with the United States? Is it desirable that relations which ought to be most friendly and intimate should be made a bone of contention during the election of President? and what is the prospect of the result of this
    1566
    proposal? The noble Earl the Foreign Secretary has referred to a communication which appeared this morning, and which, we are told, has not been impeached by the Prime Minister in the other House of Parliament. That communication is prefaced with the statement that Mr. Fish has declared it is useless to discuss Amendments—that the Government of the United States has no suggestions to offer or entertain. Is that a prospect which ought to induce us to adjourn the Arbitration? It may be the case, as has been stated "elsewhere," that nothing but the want of a little good sense can prevent an agreement being arrived at on the points now in dispute. But, if so, I want to know whether a period of eight months is necessary for the development of a little good sense? I want to know whether a space of eight weeks is not sufficient, if an agreement can really be come to at all? Let me ask you now as to the possibility of an adjournment. We are informed that in answer to the noble Earl, Mr. Fish replied that the time for the Arbitration could be extended only by a new Treaty; but if the Arbitrators themselves wish to adjourn, the United States will not object. Let me remind your Lordships of the dates. The Counter Case was delivered on the 15th of April. Now, according to the terms of the Treaty, within two months from the delivery of the Counter Case the Arbitrators are to meet to receive the written or printed arguments on the points to be insisted upon by each side respectively. Having been so possessed of those points, the final Case on both sides, the Arbitrators are to be proceed with the reference and the decision of the Tribunal is, if possible, to be made within three months after the close of the arguments on both sides. Now, I am far from suggesting a doubt bat if the two Governments had agreed upon it, there might not be an adjournment of the Arbitration, even beyond bat time and for any period that might be required for the mere purpose of arguing the points of the case. But we have before us the views of Mr. Fish, who says the adjournment cannot be made except through the medium of a new Treaty. Whether these are correct or not, they are, at all events, the views of the United States Government—an adjournment can only take place with the concurrence of Mr. Fish. Her Ma-

    1567
    jesty's Government are not at liberty to arrange beforehand that there shall be an adjournment of the Arbitration. But this statement goes on to say that if the British Government proposes an adjournment, and if the Arbitrators consent to it—if the British Government and Arbitrators are for an adjournment—the American Government will not oppose it. But that is not an agreement that the American Government will approve it. What it amounts to is throwing the responsibility on the British Government and Arbitrators, and taking the proceeding out of the ambit of an agreement between the parties. I say, my Lords, it is very much more than doubtful whether the Arbitrators have the power to go outside what is necessary for the purpose of convenience in respect of the carrying out of the reference, and of adjourning the Arbitration in this manner for a period of eight months. The words in the Treaty give a power to the Arbitrators in respect of what is to be done in the case of the death or the absence of any one of the Arbitrators appointed to hear the reference; but I hold that under the reference to Arbitration, it is the duty of the referees to go on with the Arbitration in the regular course at the time appointed. Of course, if both sides agree, the Arbitration may, for convenience sake, proceed notwithstanding such an event; but it is more than doubtful whether, without an agreement between the parties, the Arbitrators have the power to adjourn for eight months for a purpose that is merely collateral to the object of the reference. If they have the power under such circumstances to adjourn for eight months, why not for a year or for eight years? There is no reason why their power should be limited as to time. But we have it stated that the American Government will not enter into an agreement—that Mr. Fish is of opinion that this is not to be done by an agreement, but by a new Treaty. If, however, the Arbitrators order an adjournment, the United States Government will not object. I wish to know what is to be our position after an adjournment under such circumstances? But, my Lords, the matter does not stop there. What is the position of this country in submitting this proposition to Mr. Fish? The noble Earl who brought forward the Motion the other night (Earl Russell) stated on that occasion what is
    1568
    quite true. He stated that in this matter we are not suppliants, going to America and putting forward claims and asking for satisfaction—we are a people against whom America is making certain demands, which under certain conditions we are willing to submit to a proper tribunal. Is it, then, consistent with the dignity of the Sovereign, or with the high position this country should assume, that we should go to America in the form of suppliants—we who want nothing, and have nothing to ask for? I say, then, that we should be degraded if we went to the American Government and asked them for an adjournment of the Arbitration for eight months. And for what reason? For any definite reason? No. For the chance of something turning up. At the end of five months the Government have failed; and what you have failed in accomplishing in that time you think you may accomplish in eight additional months. Now, with reference to this despatch, I wish further to ask the noble Earl what it is he proposes? According to the published despatch, this proposal has been made by the noble Earl—
    "With this view I have the honour to propose that, on the meeting of the Geneva Arbitrators on that day, joint application shall be made for an adjournment for eight months. If the Government of the United States concur in making an application for adjournment, it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to deliver to the Arbitrators on the 15th inst. the summary of the argument under the 5th Article of the Treaty, accompanied by a Declaration, of which I have the honour to enclose you a copy for the information of your Government.—[No. ix, 64.]
    Well, my Lords, I will observe that the first step that is to be taken before the Arbitrators is to lodge the printed statements on both sides, with the points relied upon. Therefore the first step must have been taken before you can approach the Arbitrators to make your application to them. But the noble Earl says—"If you concur in applying for an adjournment, we will lodge our Case, with this condition that there is an assumption that the adjournment will take place." But the United States say—"We will not agree; it must not be a matter of agreement, because we will not concur." Now, I want to know whether in that case Her Majesty's Government mean to arm the Arbitrators with the points and with the arguments which are your last pleadings? When

    1569
    you hand in those points the whole process is complete:—and then what position are you in? Even if Her Majesty's Government in the form of suppliants ask the Arbitrators to direct an adjournment for eight months, how do you know they will agree to that? Suppose they said—"We will not accede; our duty is to hear the case as soon as the pleadings are complete. We have no right on the application of either side to adjourn the Arbitration. We have no authority to do so, and therefore must decline, without the consent of both sides, to order an adjournment." Where are you if the Arbitrators should arrive at that decision? If they go on, how are you to stop them? Your pleadings having been completed, and the Arbitrators being armed with them, where is your power to arrest the progress of the Arbitration? I have only one other statement to comment upon. In the published account of the Declaration there is this statement—
    "The Undersigned is instructed by the Government which he represents to state that this printed Argument is only delivered to the Tribunal conditionally on the adjournment requested in the Note which he had the honour to address to the Tribunal this day, jointly with the Agent of the United States, being carried into effect, and subject to the notice which the Undersigned has the honour herewith to give that it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to cancel the appointment of the British Arbitrator and to withdraw from the Arbitration at the close of the term fixed for the adjournment, unless the difference which has arisen between the two Governments as to the claims for indirect losses referred to in the Note which the Undersigned had the honour to address to Count Schlopis on the 15th of April, shall have been removed."
    Perhaps it may be said that it is the intention of the Government to cancel the appointment of the British Arbitrator. But, my Lords, that term "cancel" in this case is quite new to me. I want to know by what authority the Government will "cancel" the appointment of their Arbitrator. I do not see any such authority in the Treaty. If an Arbitrator dies or is incapable of acting, that is a case provided for by the Treaty; but I cannot find any words in the Treaty giving power to cancel the appointment of the Arbitrator; and I think that the power to do so is, to say the least, doubtful. My Lords, in a case so novel, so unusual, and so unprecedented, I hope—to repeat the phrase made use of by a noble Lord on a former occasion—the Government will not, in their endeavours
    1570
    to escape from a bog, end by only getting deeper into it. I hope they will give your Lordships some assurance that, without any prospect of light or explanation, we are not to be drawn into eight more months of fruitless negotiation and bitter disappointment.
    THE LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, my noble and learned Friend commenced his observations upon the statement which has just been made by my noble Friend the Secretary for Foreign Affairs saying that the Government were again placed in a position in which, according to him, we have been so often placed—that position being that at one time the most sanguine hopes are expressed, and at another the most bitter disappointments are confessed by Her Majesty's Government. Now, sitting here as I do every night during the whole of the discussions in your Lordships' House, I take upon myself to say that—my own recollection fortified by that of my noble Friend—I can assert that the noble Earl never on any occasion expressed the most sanguine hopes, and never on any occasion confessed the most bitter disappointment, with reference to these negotiations. So much as to the accuracy of the noble and learned Lord's recollection. He then proceeded to comment on the statement that appeared in a morning paper—which, he says, is not controverted in any way in "another place," though brought under the attention of my right hon. Friend at the head of the Government—in which the United States Government is represented as saying, through Mr. Fish, there can be no agreement for an adjournment, except through the medium of a new Treaty. Now, I do not blame my noble and learned Friend for quoting that statement, because it appears in the published statement; but I am glad to be able to say that it is wholly inaccurate. Mr. Fish never said that an agreement for an adjournment could no the effected except through a new Treaty, and I should have been very much surprised if he had. I do not mean to follow my noble and learned Friend through his comments on Treaties. I believe his comments on the Treaty of Washington, which have excited so much painful attention for a long time, were not very accurate, and that their inaccuracy has been productive of much evil. It is very singular that my noble

    1571
    and learned Friend should be the person who raised the first doubt I ever heard of being expressed either in this or any other country as to whether the Treaty of Washington excluded the Indirect Claims. I have been searching ever since he gave expression to that doubt to find who were those who supported him in that doubt, and, as far as I can discover, no one supported him in it. My noble and learned Friend (Lord Westbury) said the other night he had no doubt the construction of that Treaty did exclude the Indirect Claims. The noble Earl who proposed the Resolution for an Address to the Crown (Earl Russell) said the same thing; the noble Earl who followed him (Earl Granville) concurred in that opinion; and the noble Earl the late Secretary for Foreign Affairs (the Earl of Derby) said that though the language of the Treaty might be ambiguous, he thought that it excluded those Claims. For my own opinion I shall not say much; but it is the same as that held by the Attorney General and the Solicitor General; and the American jurists have said they have no doubt on the matter, because they cannot find in the Treaty language which would give such a construction to it as would include the Indirect Claims. My Lords, that being so—being unable to discover anybody who gives his sanction distinctly to the doubt entertained by my noble and learned Friend—I hesitate to accept the construction which he has put on the Treaty. It is doubtless much to be regretted that in the earlier stages of debate—after my noble Friend the Foreign Secretary stated the terms of the Treaty, and that by them the Indirect Claims were excluded—this statement should have been allowed to go without contradiction from July to December, and that then the statement of my noble and learned Friend (Lord Cairns) should have been fastened on and introduced into the American Case as one bearing the authority which justly attaches to any opinion expressed by him; but I repeat, my Lords, that when I find that, besides such legal authorities as we have in this country, the American jurists are against the view taken by my noble and learned Friend, I must arrive at the conclusion that he is not a very safe expounder of Treaties. My noble and learned Friend on the present occasion undertakes to expound
    1572
    the sense of the Treaty with reference to adjournments of the Arbitration; and, further, with regard to expressions he finds communicated through the channels we have heard of, and reflected back to us from America in the singular manner in which intelligence is now reflected back from that country, he says that he finds no words in the Treaty authorizing the Government to cancel the appointment of the British Arbitrator. Nobody supposed there was—it was never assumed that the question of cancelling the Treaty would ever arise. But surely the appointment of the Arbitrator could be cancelled if the case arose which I hope never will arise—namely, that through the two parties to the Treaty being unable to come to an agreement as to the intention of the Treaty it never became full and complete, because it was not taken in the same sense by the two parties. I hope that that will never arise; and why? Because an Article has been proposed by which the Indirect Claims, whether set up or not, will be put aside by an agreement which, I believe, will be a good one if it can be effected, and which will operate, by reason of a consideration on both sides, to hinder the bringing forward of the question whether the Indirect Claims are to be admitted. If that be so, is there not good reason for asking for an adjournment when the question at issue is so near an arrangement? Our hope of bringing the settlement of that Article to a conclusion was frustrated by The accidental circumstance of the Senate of the United States being in that position that its adjournment was fixed to take place within a period which expired yesterday. But my noble and learned Friend says, why should we apply for an adjournment at all? He says we have nothing to ask for—nothing to gain. I am proud to say we have nothing to gain; but we have a great deal to ask for, and so has the United States. Each nation has to ask the other to join in an act which will cement their friendship, put an end to their temporary heartburnings and disquietudes, and prevent any arising in the future. Each has to ask that the other should join her in uniting in bonds of brotherhood the English race throughout the world. I ask, is not this sufficient to negotiate for—is it not sufficient to induce us to prolong the negotiations as

    1573
    long as there is any hope of their being brought to a successful issue? And, finally, I say my noble and learned Friend must not assume because he reads published a correspondence which was never intended to see the light till the negotiations were finished—when, of course, it must have been produced on both sides of the water—he must not assume that the expressions in that correspondence are to be held as expressing the final determination of the negotiators. The course of these discussions has, undoubtedly, been greatly favoured by the forbearance of your Lordships' House, and at this moment it is so by the forbearance of the House of Commons. Your Lordships thought fit to break through that reserve—through that reticence—which is usually observed by the Legislature during the course of negotiations until a Treaty has been concluded; but, notwithstanding that somewhat untoward intervention, while I will not express a sanguine hope—because my noble and learned Friend trembles at the very idea—this I must say, that the Government at least hope that the object they have in view of bringing these negotiations to a satisfactory conclusion will yet be realized with the approval of the Parliament and the people of this country.
    THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My Lords, I think your Lordships will be inclined to agree with me that a more grave position for the country and a more difficult position for the action of this House could scarcely be conceived. Consider what is your position. My Lords, six months have been spent in negotiations, and how far these negotiations are likely to tend to cement that brotherhood of which the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack has spoken in such enthusiastic terms, you can easily judge by a perusal of the American newspapers. But those six months have passed away, and have practically and precisely left us in the same position as when the American Case first met the eyes of the noble Earl opposite—when the Indirect Claims were put forward, and when he said the Government would insist on a withdrawal of these Claims. But they are not withdrawn. The Americans are now asserting them as strongly and as determinedly as ever they did before. The only difference is that whereas there were then six months before the Arbi-
    1574
    tration, the Arbitration is now at our door. The Indirect Claims are put forward as strongly as ever, and no advance seems to have been made by Her Majesty's Government in making good their declaration that they would never suffer those Claims to be gone into before the Arbitrators. We have some ground of complaint in this. It is not a case of embarrassment come on the noble Earl for want of warning. Over and over again he was warned by my noble Friends of the fatal approach of dates—of the fatal approach of the time when some definite course must be taken; but no action has been taken, and here we are within three days of the Arbitration and the Indirect Claims are still upon the Table. The noble Earl told us that in all questions relating to the Indirect Claims and to the time appointed for the meeting of the Arbitrators full care would be taken; but we find now that the English Arbitrator is going to Geneva and that the English Counsel is going over to conduct our case with a protest which will make the proceedings to be gone through at Geneva valueless. I should like to know what Sir Roundell Palmer is going to do, and what the English Arbitrator is to be sent out for? If the United States agree that the Arbitration should be adjourned for eight months, Sir Roundell Palmer will have his journey to Geneva for nothing. If the United States do not agree to the adjournment which Her Majesty's Government are asking from them, are we to understand that Sir Roundell Palmer is going to conclude our Case—to deliver that Case out of the hands of England—so that there will be nothing to stand between us and the arbitrament of the Indirect Claims? We ought to have clearer accounts of these negotiations than we get through scraps of information derived through the corrupt indiscretion of American officials? The noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack spoke of the great forbearance of Parliament during those negotiations—certainly it has been carried further than it was ever before carried during negotiations as important as these—but we are entitled to ask Her Majesty's Government whether it is intended for the next eight months to leave us to subsist on the indiscretion of American officials; or does the noble Earl intend now to lay the Papers on the Table? Does he in-

    1575
    tend to give us any further information, or to leave us to chance for the next eight months? My Lords, obviously there is in the Cabinet some influence which counteracts the strong and generally expressed feelings of the people of England that those Indirect Claims should be at once put an end to; and we are justified in feeling apprehension. I hope the House will urge on the Government to give us clear information; but if the Government still refuse—still shelter themselves behind official privilege, I hope your Lordships will again step forward and say on what terms—and what terms alone—Great Britain would consent to proceed with the Arbitration.
    THE EARL OF KIMBERLEY: My Lords, I am not surprised at the manner in which the noble Marquess treats this question. He feels complete distrust of Her Majesty's Government, and is justified in expressing it. But what I wish to put to your Lordships is this—that when a Ministry is charged with the government of this country they cannot discharge that duty under the principle of distrust. If we, who are Ministers of the Crown, are as such intrusted with these negotiations, and Parliament does not take any means to displace us, it is our bounden and absolute duty to the country and to Parliament not to be driven by any taunts or attacks or mistrust to depart from the system we think necessary to conduct these negotiations to a prosperous issue. My Lords, I must express my opinion—speaking in reference not only to the present, but to all other diplomatic negotiations—that no negotiation can be brought to a successful result if it is to be conducted in the face of day, and information is to be given to Parliament day by day, and, as noble Lords opposite have wished, almost hour by hour, of every step which is taken. For my own part, I should infinitely prefer to cease to be one of the responsible Advisers of Her Majesty, and would never desire to be in such a position again, if we are to be made responsible for negotiations carried on under such circumstances. The noble Marquess asks if it is our intention to keep Parliament for eight months without information. If it were so we should, indeed, be carrying reticence to a point where there would be no excuse for it. But so far from that being the case, it
    1576
    is the intention of my noble Friend, before the close of this week, to lay before Parliament the whole of the Papers connected with these negotiations. From them it will be seen precisely what has and what has not been done, and Parliament will be able to judge whether the negotiations have been conducted in a manner consistent with the declarations we have given and with the honour of the country. As to the observations of the noble and learned Lord opposite (Lord Cairns), there was one point to which my noble and learned Friend on the Woolsack did not advert. It was the extraordinary argument that supposing the adjournment were to be consented to it would cause angry discussions in the United States. But can anyone conceive anything more likely to cause anger than the failure of the Treaty? If anybody tells me that the adjournment of this Arbitration—which can obviously only be agreed to because the two countries conceive there is, at all events, the possibility of coming to an agreement—is more likely to bring about dissension between the two countries than if the Treaty were entirely broken because of complete disagreement between the two Governments—I say deliberately that such language can only proceed from a person who, from the first, has been determined, whatever might be the consequences to the interest of his own country, to destroy this Treaty. The person who takes that view is the noble and learned Lord opposite, who has been a consistent advocate of the United States Government from the first. Therefore, I do not propose to tell the noble and learned Lord what instructions will be given to our Agent upon the occasion of the meeting at Geneva. If I did so I know that the noble and learned Lord would rise in his place, and with that power of ingenuity which I always admire would at once demonstrate that it was the one thing which was necessary to prove that the United States Government had been entirely in the right, and that this country had been entirely in the wrong. My Lords, I decline to give any such information; but while I do so I do not intend anything I have said to bear a personal character as regards the noble and learned Lord. The character of the noble and learned Lord stands far above any attack, and I do not propose to make one. But I

    1577
    have made these remarks, because words spoken by a noble Lord of such high character have an effect upon the interests of the country which we must all deprecate. It is for these reasons that I think the Government right in refusing to give the noble and learned Lord the information for which he has asked.
    THE EARL OF DERBY: My Lords, I have no intention of carrying further the rather personal discussion initiated by the noble Earl who has just sat down. I am not, however, surprised that the noble Earl should have preferred to look at the matter from that point of view, because I can easily understand that to the noble Earl and his Colleagues the discussion of any topic would be more agreeable than that of the facts now under our consideration. Nor do I feel it necessary to vindicate the character of my noble and learned Friend, who is charged by the noble Earl with having done all in his power to destroy the Treaty. My Lords, nothing has been said or done by my noble and learned Friend in the course of these discussions for which we who sit near him do not take an equal responsibility. And when he is charged with having given his support to the American Case, I must say that he simply pointed out what appeared to him to be weak points in the Treaty so far as regarded the interests of this country—objections which afterwards proved to be well founded:—but when he did so the Government had still an opportunity to prevent the Treaty from being ratified before those doubts he had suggested were fully cleared up. I do not want to go further into that. For my own part, I do not wish to indulge in any of those taunts or sarcasms which the noble Earl opposite (the Earl of Kimberley) deprecates. I think such a course would be particularly inadvisable, when all the facts of these negotiations are so imperfectly known, and when circumstances are so critical:—but I must say that notwithstanding the speech of the noble Earl the Secretary for Foreign Affairs—who, I have no doubt, has laid before us all that he thinks it consistent with his duty to make known—notwithstanding that the unexpected disclosures from the other side of the water have thrown some light on the matter—the position in which the matter stands is by no means satisfactory. It is quite clear that the Arbi-
    1578
    tration could not go on at the time originally appointed—that is admitted on all hands; but there are two points on which we have heard no explanation. First, why this delay specially asked for is applied for by us? and, secondly, why the delay asked is for the particular period of eight months? Unquestionably, any delay that may arise must be for reasons of mutual convenience. The American Government have quite as much to lose as we have—I will not say they have more, but certainly they have quite as much to lose as we have—by the breaking off of the Treaty, if that unfortunately happens. Then, why is so long a term as eight months asked for? If no difference has arisen except one as to the conditions of Arbitration, the question might be settled in a very much shorter time than eight months—if, indeed, it admits of being settled by negotiation. I do not say that we may not be able to get over the difficulty—I hope we may—but it is clear that by an adjournment for a few weeks, or a few days, you would be quite as likely to get over it as you would by an adjournment for a longer period. I do not suppose the date of adjournment is fixed with reference to the Presidential election in the United States; but, of course, that is an idea which occurs to every one's mind. I, however, reject that, because to suppose it would be to suppose this country placed in a position which it is not too much to say would be ridiculous, and even degrading. You must, however, consider the risk to which you expose the pending negotiations in hanging them up in a way that they shall be made use of by two political parties in fighting out their battles. At the same time, I admit the difficulty of the situation, and I am very reluctant to press for information which may be withheld for public reasons; but I cannot think there would be any breach of diplomatic reticence on the part of the noble Earl in his telling us why a delay for such a period is necessary; why the delay is to be so protracted as would amount to almost an indefinite postponement? I need not point out the evils that will result from the injury which it will occasion to commerce and the anxiety to which it will give rise. These must occur to the minds of the Government. What I now want to know is what is the reason which induced them to take

    1579
    a course so singular and so unexpected, and which the country will hear of with so much surprise and regret.
    EARL GRANVILLE: Before I answer the questions the noble Earl (the Earl of Derby) has put to me, I must say a single word as to the arguments of the noble Marquess (the Marquess of Salisbury)—who is so singularly qualified to speak of the best means of promoting conciliation and avoiding irritation either between two individuals or two countries—that I do not believe the language he has used to-night is calculated to produce that soothing effect upon the United States which he is so alarmed lest the action of Her Majesty's Government should disturb. I deny that at this moment there is the greatest irritation between the two countries, and that a really unfriendly feeling has been shown in the United States towards this country. I think the very reverse is the case. Even as regards the Press of the United States—which is of course carried away by party politics, and very likely takes the same course as regards the Government of that country that some noble Lords do in respect of the Government of this country—shows a better feeling than it formerly displayed in reference to these negotiations. I may observe that not only in newspaper articles, but in speeches of Senators the Government of the United States are charged with having allowed themselves to be out-generalled and humiliated by this country. I saw the other day that General Butler denounced General Schenck for dancing attendance in my antechamber, and writing by dictation from me. The Governments on each side of the Atlantic must put up with such things; but I believe that in the result any Government that seeks honestly to discharge its duty in endeavouring to keep good feeling and peace between the two countries will reap its just reward. With regard to the question put to me by the noble Earl (the Earl of Derby), I have to say that we proposed the period of eight months as that of the adjournment because we thought it combined these two advantages—the meetings of the Congress are fixed by the Constitution for certain dates—the next meeting will be on the 1st of December. On the other hand, Parliament generally meets in the beginning of February, and our arrangements would not be concluded
    1580
    till Parliament met next year. It is quite true that the President, if he bikes to exercise his privilege, can call the Senate together in extraordinary Session; but I believe—though I am not authorized to say the fact is so—that there are objections to that course, and these objections would probably be increased at the time of the excitement consequent on the Presidential election, which event happens every four years. There is a minority of the Senate bitterly opposed to the re-election of President Grant. We have some knowledge of what minorities can do in this country; but I believe that in the United States speeches are not made as here by hours, but by consecutive days. Here it is only necessary for us to have a mere majority; but there a majority of two-thirds is necessary. I believe that to press the American Government to call an extraordinary Session of the Senate would not be a wise proceeding under existing circumstances; and therefore we believe that the objects we have in view will be best promoted by an adjournment of the Arbitration to the time we have proposed to the American Government.
    EARL GREY: My Lords, I have heard with alarm and regret the statement of my noble Friend the Foreign Secretary. I think that this Arbitration should not be allowed to go on in any manner without a clear and distinct understanding that those Indirect Claims are not to be pressed before the Arbitrators. We have now had the question before us for five or six months—noble Lords on the Opposition benches have pressed again and again for the assurance that the Indirect Claims shall not be admitted—I have very humbly joined in the same request; but we see step after step some concession made, and now we hear that Sir Roundell Palmer goes to Geneva to-morrow with instructions of which we do not know the purport, but which I fear can only have the effect of prejudicing this country. I have to remind your Lordships that when the letter of General Schenck was read the other night it was believed that if the Arbitration went on, with the Supplemental Article and that Letter before the Arbitrators, no doubt could exist that the Indirect Claims had disappeared. I ask your Lordships whether anyone in this House acquiesced in the proposal to refrain from expressing any opinion

    1581
    upon the subject, except upon the understanding and in the belief that if the Supplemental Treaty should fall to the ground, then, without any new regotiations or any new scheme for patching up the failure, we were at once to withdraw from the Arbitration. I am convinced of nothing more clearly than that this was the understanding my noble Friend (Earl Russell) came to, and that it was on that understanding only he asked the House to refrain from addressing Her Majesty on the subject. On any other supposition it would have been very wrong for us to have taken that course. We all understood that if the Supplemental Treaty failed then we were to withdraw from the Arbitration at once, without any further attempt at negotiations, when so many had been made and had failed. We now find ourselves placed in the most embarrassing position, and I hardly know what duty requires of us. Can we, after what we have lately done, allow these proceedings to go on without taking some steps to obtain from the Government an assurance that nothing shall be done inconsistent with the honour of this country? The circumstances almost warrant our adopting the unusual course of sitting on Wednesday, and reviewing to-morrow the proposals of the Government. I make no proposal of that kind; but I must repeat that we are placed in a most embarrassing position by the disclosures of to-day, after having assented to the withdrawal of the Motion made last week.
    THE DUKE OF MARLBOROUGH: My Lords, I do not wish to prolong the discussion upon this subject, but to advert to a statement made by the noble Earl the Colonial Secretary, to the effect that the noble Earl the Foreign Secretary would lay on the Table the Correspondence on the subject of this new Convention before the close of the present week. What I wish to ask is, whether that Correspondence which the noble Earl proposes to lay on the Table will embrace the alterations which have been made, or are supposed to have been made, in the Supplemental Treaty by the Senate of the United States—so that the House may have an opportunity of knowing what those alterations are, and what view the Government has taken of those alterations?
    EARL GRANVILLE: It is not usual previous to the presentation of Papers to describe their contents; but, at the same time, I have no objection to state, in reply to the noble Duke's Question, that the information he desires will be contained in the Papers I shall lay on the Table. In reply to the noble Earl on the cross-benches (Earl Grey), I would say that Her Majesty's Government have taken all the measures they thought necessary in order to carry out all the assurances they have made to the House.
    LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNEsaid, he had merely placed the Notice which appeared in his name on the Paper to allow any noble Lord who might wish to raise the question to do so consistently with the Orders of the House.

  TREATY OF WASHINGTON—COMMUNICATIONS OF THE HIGH COMMISSIONERS—PROFESSOR BERNARD'S LECTURE.—QUESTION.
  LORD BUCKHURSTrose to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether there was any objection to laying on the Table of the House a copy of the Correspondence between Her Majesty's Government and the British High Commissioners during the negotiation on the Alabama Claims and since the presentation of the American Case referred to in Earl Granville's letter to Sir Edward Thornton, dated the 13th of May, 1872? The noble Lord said, he introduced the subject in the form of a Question in consequence of a letter from the noble Earl to Sir Edward Thornton, recently laid on the table, in which the noble Earl said the British Commissioners, in the information they had furnished during the negotiations and since the presentation of the American Case, had uniformly maintained that the claims for Indirect Losses were not included, nor intended by them to be included, in the terms of the Case to be submitted to Arbitration. And in the course of the recent debate the noble Earl had stated that on a particular day a statement was received by the Government from the British Commissioners to the effect that the Indirect Claims had been waived by the American Government. The document containing this statement should be on the Table of the House. That a

  1583
  Correspondence such as he referred to did exist was clearly proved by the speech of Sir Stafford Northcote at Exeter, and the lecture delivered by Mr. Bernard at Oxford. In the latter, Mr. Bernard stated that throughout the whole of the proceedings the British Commissioners were constantly in communication with their Government. He would ask, therefore, whether it was consistent with the dignity of their Lordships' House that information of such importance as that which the speeches of these gentlemen contained should first he communicated in the forms of lectures and speeches. Again, in a letter to Sir Edward Thornton, the noble Earl opposite said that the nature of the claims made by America was closely defined and limited. He should be glad to learn where that definition and limitation occurred—for they were not to be found in the instructions given to the Commissioners, nor, as far as he could see, either in the Treaty or the Protocol. They must, therefore, occur in the correspondence for which he was now asking. He would at the same time ask the noble Earl the second Question of which he had given Notice—whether the sum—namely, £5,000,000 or £6,000,000 sterling—claimed by the American Government, as stated by Mr. Bernard, in his lecture at Oxford, is the total amount of the "Direct Claims" now presented to the Arbitrators at Geneva.
  EARL GRANVILLEsaid, he must decline to enter into any statements made by Mr. Bernard, and would further beg to point out that the noble Lord would, find the amount of the American claims by consulting the proper records. As to the Correspondence between Her Majesty's Government and the British High Commissioners, there had been no correspondence between them since the presentation of the American Case. With regard to the clear definition of the Claims referred to arbitration, that clear definition would be found in the Treaty itself. All the Correspondence, except that which was confidential, had been laid upon the Table; and as to the confidential portion of it, he saw no advantage in presenting it to the House.

  TREATY OF WASHINGTON—TRIBUNAL OF ARBITRATION (GENEVA).

    MOTION FOR AN ADDRESS.
    LORD ORANMORE AND BROWNE, believing it to be desirable that such a Resolution should be placed upon the records of the House, said he would now move the Address of which he had given Notice.
    Moved that an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that Her Majesty will be graciously pleased to give instructions that all proceedings on behalf of Her Majesty before the arbitrators appointed to meet at Geneva pursuant to the Treaty of Washington be suspended until an agreement in writing be come to between Her Majesty's Government and the Government of the United States, and such agreement be laid before the arbitrators at Geneva by the joint action of these two Governments, removing and putting an end to all demands on the part of the Government of the United States with regard to the claims included in the case submitted on behalf of the United States and understood on the part of Her Majesty not to be within the province of the arbitrators.—(The Lord Oranmore and Browne.)
    Resolved in the Negative.
    House adjourned at a quarter before Seven o'clock, to Thursday next, half-past Ten o'clock.