The Express.
London, England, 1860-05-12 00:00:00

OF SHIPOWNERS IN CASES OF
COLLUUON AT SEA.

Mr. DIGBY 111Y11017/Mrtni the attention of the
helm M tile elate el thr low with maid to collisions at
son se tows jamiso emu& wimaioassenni
lire
ort deadliest etentannisetiona oady
*alkyl* et Thiels 'end Abe Pcseispeellhadaboe
Claims te the ofiltiost to lamb *I Ass. nintiter bad
=ll6.asol ettatien. Ilis view mothg* about some
assangssunt. Milk I. • questien of
the bon. esembee for flanderland, as to whether the 'omen-
ment intended to introduce any measure to airry into effect
the resenteemdMioosof the Harboursof Refuge Commiseion,
he admitted; list the matter was we of great importance.
There solid be so Menses al opinion that it was desirable
that hothouse el new *humid exists especially upon the
meters soest, where so estrelmnt vessels were in the
eoestant habit of passing. The sal queetion' however,
was, where the money was to came ham. Tbseannittei
recommended that the expense should be defrayed by a toll
levied upon the passing ships, but the minim at the
commissioners was that tie expenditure should hemeciS
by • parliamentary great. He did not find upon
inquiries that either the shipowners sr the insurers
harbours of refuge sailleinatly to be wasp to take upon
themselves any considerable portion of the drugs, and with
regard to a parliamenturgmak that was a question for the
comideratioa of the Tresmory. The question was now under
ccusidwation, and inetruetioira bad been given to prepare •
bill to carry out to • greet extent the recommendation of
the ocecuMeislon. It was not however intended to give hill
meet to them, but the provielose of the bill would give
facilities for making improvements without }Weis the
Weise 1111 amp lase of a speolel set of
arbunent.

MISCELLANEOUS QUR'ITIONS.
Mr. HALIBURTON called attention to the French for-
tifications of St. Barre, and asked whether there was any
objection to produce oopies of all questions submitted to
the law ofScers of the crown! He adduced a multitude of
Instances to show the unfair conduct of the French settlers
on this rock to British subjects.
Mr. JAMES asked whether the government seriously
intended to Re as proceed continuously with the committee on
the Reform so to enable it to reach the other house
in time to pais to a law!
- Mr. GRIFFITH asked the Foreign Secretary whether he
could give any aasuraaae that no French troops would be
moved into the provinces of Chablais and Faucigny until
the dispositions to be adopted as to those neutralised pro-
vinces were settled by diplomatic agreement!
Mr. V. SCULLY revived the subject of the Reform Bill.
LORD J. RUSSELL IN REPLY.
.•

Lord J. RUIFTEITiiii liontanTliearnedgentleman op-
podte has already brought forward the question of then
of ou the blend of St. Pierre ; and 1 am very
sorry that the answer which I then gave him does not ap-
pear to be satisfactory, because I have now little more to
do than to state arms what was the substance of that an-
ewer. In 1866 I think in the month of January—an order
was sent to the Governor of Newfoundland to make inqui-
rise into the existence of fortifications on the Island of St.
Pierre. In the month of April he made an answer to the
question which was put to him ; and he stated that there
were fortifications commanding the entrance to the harbour
—that there was a battery mounting 8 24-pounders, and 2
42-pound guns commanding the roadstead, and that there
was another battery at the entrant* of the harbour com-
manding the south-eaetern ppassssaaggee, in which there were 8
42-pounders. There was likewise a third battery and a
berm& capable of holding 300 or 400 men. Upon this
state of affairs the whole question was submitted to the law
officers of the crown. It was note single question as to any
particular fortification but it wasa question whether the
state of things described was conformable to the treaty or
at variance with it. The honourable and learned gentle-
man has stated very truly that from 1712 to 1814
there were various treaties which made provisions with regard
to fortifications on St. Pierre ; and the question was,whether
there ought to bo fortifications or no fortifications on that
island ? The answer of the law officers was, that these for-
tifications did not amount to an infraction of the various
treaties which had beep *mitered into. The hon. and learned
gmtleenan asks me to produce the question submitted to the
law officers, and the answer which they returned to it ; but
to do sowouldise quitoagainst the rule which has alwaysbeen
adopted. In sneh cases it is not considered right toproduce
tiravlii
the opinion of the law officers of the crown ; and •
as I do, that that rule is forme.' upon very good reasons,
cannot comply with the hon. and learned gentleman's re-
quest The matter of the fisheries is quite a different one.
The hoe. and learned gentleman said, I dare say very truly,
that there were 30,000 Frenchmen employed in theme
fisheries. It is the practice of the French government and
I believe it is also the practice of the government of the
United States to give large bounties in order to promote
those fisheries. It is part of their policy to do so, rather,
I believe, with a view to have a large number of seamen
than with • view to any. commercial profits that they might
derive from them. It is a totally separate question, and
does not relate to treaties at all. It is a matter of trade
policy, with respect to which it would not he conve-
nient to eater at the present moment. Of course the hon.
and learned gentleman Clll2, if he thinks fit, find fault with
the policy adopted some few years ago of discontinuing the
system of bounties. The noble lord (Lord Lovsine) asked
me a question about the fisheries convention with regard to
Newfoundland. That is a subject of very great import-
ance, and the negotiations upon it have now lasted for •
considerable time but I hope they are approaching their
termination. Capt. Dunlop, the commissioner sent to Paris
to complete them, lila returned home. He has this day
seen my noble friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies;
and I am told that the explanation which he has given is
satisfactory to the noble duke. The gallant captain is about
to return to Paris, when' he hopes to bring to a termination
this negotiation. The opinion of the commissioner has been
that it would not be necessary to have any new treaty, but
that the treaty which already exists, with a proper inter-
pretation and with proper measures taken to carry it into
effect, would be sufficient. I need not, therefore, enterany
further into that matter ; but I trust I shall soon be able to
announce the completion of the negotietions. The hon.
gentleman opposite (Mr. Griffith) asked me, with regard to
Faucigny and Chablais, whether we have received any
assurance that no French troops will be mewed into those
provinces. I have already stated that the French govern-
ment refuse to enter into any engagement upon that point.
They have said that they will not send any troops into the
neutralised provinces of Savoy until the vote of the
Sardinian parliament has completely ceded these
possessions of Savoy ; but that after that time
they will enter into no engagement on the subject,
The hon. gentleman is so far right that I conceive any
Crof making • difference in the arrangements would
yt sash clouded by that fact—es well as the
of leaking any proposal that no French troops should occupy
the country. I did net understand at first what the hon.
gentleman proposed that we should du. I have not, as he
states, glare any smuranue to this house • rich we were not
able to fulfil. The hem. gentleman now says that we ought
to withdraw from all further negotist.ous upon the subject.
That is a matter certainly of very grave consideration, and
I I cannot at present give any assurance to the hones
of that nature. The hon. and learned member for

Mar*bone asked me • qtion
digmal lubfieet, with reprdues to the uriforma
I think he his shows some candour in admitting that the
government have elves some ground ppearease for the
charge of insurer that lue been Lid against the= ;
I am equally ready to declare that his conduct shows consi-
ders* that he is not favourable to this bill of
ref A laugh.) I adnat • degree of candour in that
respect equal to his. But with regard to the period of the
introduction of this bill I most say that the Ist of March
was itia. very Lie date upon which to bring in • bill of
this • Then the hon. and learned gentleman suppers
that have pertpoiesd this bill to the London Corporation
Reform Bill sad ether manure. That is quite an erroneous
supposition cm his part, owing perhaps to his want of expe-
, rime, of the proceedings of the home. If 1 had said that,
indeed of the Highways Bill, I prmosed that the committee
oa the Rehm BM Amid be taken to-night—being • notice
night—the members of this home would, [think, generally,
and with reason, have mid, that it was a matter of tar too
to be left to the chum of being taken at
rrat W m=leost • notice eight--(hear, hear)—and that it
ought to be taken Ohs first thing on scene evening when the
of the day wliipaenut. Bat I may further add, that
.titaz.,palpeesiten ritieszaresmanclifinverarat importance whict
a11y77 groat importance, but of great ergency,
I=lllo4lPetiti=rlisr
.116-24"."11 isquiretometi of' the year.
Beth* ma be more inconvenient to the country than to
lime measure, relating to eirdeuseend eicisitpastpened
sad protracted foe a keg pariah dialog *hick the business
of the country is kept in suspense. Therefore, there seemed
to me to be great reason for not bringing on the Reform
Bill till after them important matters were disposed of.
(Hear, bear.) Accordingly, I have fixed the date of the
committee on the 4th of June. I have mentioned that
time on which to bring it on • of course, whether it is to
come on on that day or not mist depend very much on what
is the plessuni of the house, became on • notice day we
cannot bring on the committee upon the bill without the
consent of bon. members who may be willing to
give it precedence. The ham and learned member
for Cork asked me whether •we would agree
to introduce clausal into the Reform Bill for
England and Wake which would he applicable to Ireland.
Really I suppose that when my right hon. friend (Mr.
Cardwell) proposed to defer tits seed reading of the
Reform Bill fee Ireland, he did not answer this question on
the former evening ; but then he did oat understand what
wits the conies which the hen and learned. member for
Cork recommended. But the ben and learned member
must see that in such acme it would be necessary to with-
draw this bill and to bring in another. The chairmen of
committees would naturally object to introduce provisions
applicable to Ireland into a bill for Eaglrad and Wales. It
is impossible therefore to propene such einem se he re-
commends. Then we should find that questimis with
regard to the franchise having been decided epos this bill,
we should have more diacuseion on the Irish bill, and
thus we should discuss the SIMS questions over and over.
I will only add that those boa. members who do not seem
to be favourable to the bill have only to take the comae
which is the direct course, and if they dislike the bill, to
vote against it altogether. (Hear, hear.) What we have
dens is to Wing m a bill, which we think °melees, and
Wash may km. members of the house think, will be a
eneki amesenra lf, however, there are hon. members who
think-it eimilenicieseres sad ,ereve bat let them throw
it out sad teas Ai respat am themselves. But to
call it at one time • very smell bill, that there is nothing
at all in it, and than at smother time to say
it Is • dangerous and revolutionary measure, this
is a coarse which is not very consistent and not
very useful I will bring the bill forward at • time when
I=that many fears will have disappeared, and hoe.
will then be able to say what they think should be
the prow franchise, and what they think should be done.
They wlll also be able to state what course they think
should be adopted with regard to the redistribution of
seals. The bin and learned member for Marylebone has
to introduce a ladder franchise. That is a very
farlre d franchise, and I assure but that that psoposal will be
carefully discussed by the government with all the reasons
that can be urged for and against the proposal. But whether
they will adopt that franchise or not, I do hope the home
will go series* into • essideration of the question, and
came to • aooelative alkl6oll upon it.

Ur. JAMES wished te explain that be never said he
thought the noble lord insincere ; his opinion was quite the
reverse. What he add wax the impression in the countp
wail Ur, tie somliexant 11.111111141610.11. 'JOE
Mr. SMUT Tworsited against the term inconsistency
being applied to hia conduct.
Lord J. RUSSELL said he by no means intended to refer
to the hon. and learned gentleman.