The Sun.
London, England, 1864-05-14 00:00:00

SMALL ARMS.

Lord ELCHO asked for some information as to the in-
tuition of the War Department in regard to the money
for the manufacture of small arms.

The Marquis of HARTINGI ON said it was intended
to reduce the manufacture of arms at Enfield. For the
Past year, up to April last, 50,000 rifles had been manufac-
tured, of which only 40,600 had been used. He believed
the production for the past year would be about 1,000 a
week.

THE OYSTER FISHERIES.
Mr DU CANE asked the President of the Board of
Trade whether the commission appointed last year to inquire
into the present state of the oyster fisheries of this country
had made any report, and whether it was the intention of
this Government to ask the Government of France to agree
to an international commission with a view to alter and
amend the fishery convention between France and this
country,
Mr, M, GIBSON said that the commission had not yet
made their report, but he ,hoped it would be presented at
the close of the session. With regard to the second ques •
time a communication had passed between the English and
the French Governments on the subject, but it was eons!.
dered advisable not to come to any decision until the re.
port had been presented.
THE CONFERENCE,
Mr, R. LONG asked the First Lord of the Trea. miry,
whether the Minister for Foreign Affairs will contain! to
preside at the Conference, notwithstanding the exactions
and oppressions alleged to have been perpetrated in Jutland
by the orders of Marshal Wrangel; and, whether her Ma-
jesty's Government have protested and will protest against
the commission of such outrages on non-combatants during
the sittings of the Conference.
Sir G. GREY said that what had occurred in Jutland
was an additional reason for stopping the war, and, with a
view to that object, the noble lord at the head of Foreign
Affairs could not retire from his position. One of the ob.•
jects proposed by the Conference was to make the Prussian
troops p ly for what they required instead of making levies
on neutral ground.

EX-GOVERNORS OF COLONIES,
Mr. B. COL;IIILANE asked the Secretary of State for
the Colonies, what decision the Government had come to
respecting the granting pemions to es-Governors o. Colo•
nies ?

Mr. CARDWELL said the Government had not come to
any decision on the subject,
ALLEGED GRIF,VANCIES OF EXCISE
OFFICE RS.

Mr. W. E. FORSTER asked the Treasury, when an
answer would be given to the petition of the rin;ers of her
Ntsjesty's Customs, London. proving for redress of pie.
Vinces ?

Mr. PEEL said the conclusion which had been arrived
at on this subject would shortly b 3 communicated to the
house.

PURIFICATION OF THE TIIAUES.

Mr. CLIFFORD asked the Secretary of Stata for the
Horne Departmmt, whether his attention had been called

to the large discharge of gas tar refuse into the river
Thar and, whether he would set the law in motion to
aba t:eaaw; nuisance
Po lig.

Mr HUTT admitted the importance of the question, and
said that a bill in reference to it was under consideration.
POLICY TOWARDS CHINA.
Colonel SYKES asked the Under Secretary of State for
Foreign Affairs whether he would lay upon the table of the
house copy of a despatch from Sir Frederick Bruce to Earl
Russell, respecting the joint policy the Ministers of Russia,
Franc; and America had agreed to pursue in China ; and,
copy of which he had furnished to Mr. Burlinghame, the
American Minister, for communication to the American
Government, and to which Mrßurlinghame referred in his
despatch to Mr. Seward, dated Pekin, 20th June, 1863, and
marked A of the enclosures ?
Mr LAYARD said he did not consider it would be ad-
visable to lay the despatch in question on the table at pre-
sent, as it related to the policy both of France and Russia,
BANK OF ENGLAND ISSUE.

Mr. HEYGATE asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer
whether, taking into account the vast increase of the trade
and commerce of England in the last thirty years, he was
of opinion that the arrangement of 1844, limiting the Bank
of England to an issue of fourteen millions of bank notes
without a corresponding amount of gold, was now com•
mensurate with the daily monetary requirements of the
country ?
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER said that
he found this question would not admit of an intelligent
answer without going into a general statement, He agreed
with the principles of the Act of 1844, but he considered
there were secondary and subsidiary provisions to which
the attention of Parliament might be called with benefit.
DEGREES OF MEDICINE CONFERRED BY
THE ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURY.
Col. FRENCH asked the Secretary of State for the Home
Department if it was the fact that the Archbishop of Can-
terbury had the power to confer the title of Dootor of Medi-
cine on persons who had not undergone an examination
before the College of Physicians, and said that the Arch-
bishop received £7O for every such title he conferred.
Sir G. GREY said that he was not able to obtain all the
information he required on this subject, but that he could
state that there was an old act under which he could confer
the degree of doctor of medicine.
THE ALLEGED IMPRISONMENT FOR SLEEP- I
ING UNDER A. TENT.

Sir G. GREY read a communication from a magistrate
at Cornwall, stating that the parties whose case bad been
brought before Parliament, as having been unjustly im-
prisoned, were sent to gaol not for sleeping under a tent,
but for vagrancy under circumstances that fully justified
their committal.
THE LATE VICE-PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL
OF EDUCATION.

Mr. LOWE entered into a personal explanation in refe-
rence to what had taken place in the house last night, when
a document was produced which he had no oppor-
tunity of consulting. He said that there wero two
descriptions of reports to the committee, ono of
which was intended for publication, and the other merely
special, and intended entirely for a department, and his
observations on a previous occasion had reference solely to
the former. With regard to Mr, Murrill he had been dis-
missed for misconduct, and he deprecated the practice of
hon. members taking up the statements of discarded
officials.
After a few words from Col, FRENCH and Lord R. Chem,
the subject dropped.
ADJOURNMENT OF THE HOUSE,
Sir G. GREY, in the absence, of Lord Palmerston, moved
that the house at its rising should adjourn till Thursday
next, which was agreed to.
ALLEGED INFRACTION OF NEUTRALITY.
Mr. T. BARING called the attention of the house to the
fact that an armed steamer was now in the port of Liverpool
which, having been originally manned and equipped from
British ports, has preyed upon the commerce of a friendly na-
tion, and has never been in any port of the belligerent under
whose flag she sails ; and asked the First Lord of the Trea-
sury whether he thought the admissions of such vessels to
British harbours consistent with our international obliga-
tions, our professions of neutrality, and the preservation of
British interests. In bringing this question before the
house it was not his intention to enter into the merits of' :oe
war on the other side of the Atlantic, nor did he %fish to
cast censure upon anybody, nor to find fault w'.',ll her Ma-
jesty's Government. He would simply give a brief his-
tory of the case, and he believed, when, he stated the whole
of the facts connected with the Career of that vessel, some
astonish rent would be expressed at the course which had
been pursued. The hon. member then read the following
statement :
" The Japan, otherwise the Virginia, commonly known
as the Georgia,was built et Dumbarton, on the Clyde. She
was equipped by a Liverpool firm. Her crew was shipped
by the same Liverpool firm for Shanghai, and sent round to
Greenock by steamer. She was entered on the 3:at March,
1863, as for Point de Gallo and Hong Kong, with a crew of
48 men. She cleared on the tat of April. She left her
anchorage on the morning of the 2d of April, ostensibly to
try her engines, but did not return. She had no armament
on leaving Greenock, but a few days after her departure a
small steamer, called the Allar, freighted with guns, shot,
shell, &c., and having on board a partler of her Liverpool
firm, who had equipped her arid ehipped her crew, left New-
haven, and met the Georgia off, the coast of France, near
Ushant. The cargo of the Allar was successfully trans-
ferred to the Georgia 071 the Bth or 9th of April ; her crew
consisted of British 2,nbjects. The Allar put into Plymouth
on the Bth of bringing the Liverpool merchant who
had directed the proceedings throughout, and bringing
also 15 eAmen who had refused to proceed in the Georgia
on learning her reel character. The rest of the crew re-
mained. At the time of her departure the Georgia was re-
gistered as the property of a Liverpool merchant, a partner
of the firm which shipped the crew. She remained the pro-
perty of this person until the 23d of June, when the regis-
ter was cancelled, he not notifying the collector of her sale
to foreign owners. During this period—viz., from the Ist
April to the 23d June—the Georgia being still registered
in the name of a Liverpool merchant, and thus his pro-
perty, was carrying on war against the United States, with
whom we were in alliance. It was whilst still a British
vessel that she captured and burned the Dictator, and cap-
tured and released under bond the Griawood, the same
vessel which had brought corn to the Lancashire sufferers.
The crew of the Georgia was paid through the same Liver-
pool firm. A copy of the advance note used was to be found
in the diplomatic correspondence. The same firm continued
to act in this capacity throughout the cruises of the Georgia.
After cruising in the Atlantic and burning and hoarding a
number of vessels, the Georgia made for Cherbourg, where
she arrived on the 28th of October. There was at the time
much discontent amongst the crew. Many deserted, leave
of absence was given to others, and their wages were paid
all along by the same Liverpool firm. In order to get the
Georgia to sea again the Liverpool firm enlisted in Liver-
pool some 20 seamen, and sent them to Brest. The Georgia
left Cherbourg on a second cruise, but having no success
she returned to that port, and thence to Liverpool, where
her crew have been paid off without any concealment, and
the vessel is now laid up."
They had there the case of a vessel clandestinely leaving
the port where she was constructed, taking on board Eng-
lishmen as her crew, waging war against the United
States, and burning and committing depredations without
having ever entered any port of the power of which she
assumed to be one of the vessels, registered for a long time
as the property of an English merchant, and now returned
to Liverpool. He was sure the Government had done all

in its power to prevent the repetition of outrage, but theim:

potency of the law must bo his excuse for bringing the sub-
ject before the hou3e. There were many of these vessels
afloat, with the object of inflicting injury upon the allies of
this country. They were vessels which in some cases would

have been wrested if time had been given; in all, if their
purpose had been known. The question was, could they be
said to fulfil their obligations of neutrality towards bellige-
rents by the adoption of a course simply because it was in
harmony with our municipal law? In his view, it was 'ate
common sense of international law that a neutral sh,..,iild
do
unto a belligerent as she would wish to be done I:,y, (Hear,
hear.) It was in order to avert war that the. Foreign En-
listment Act was passed, and it was in'o':(Tter:to prevent the
subjects of this country and of Ame-eica from jeopardising
the peace and amity of the world that he demanded the in •
terference of that house. Wllen vessels entered upon such a
course of devastation, was, it not time to ask whether the law
afforded the means of protecting the interests of our allies
as well as our own P The question was one on which there
ought to be no -doubt as to the course to be adopted by the
Government. In his opinion the Government ought to avail
themselves. of every means in their power to shut our ports
against such vessels. They had no claim upon the hospi-
tality of the country, and, in respect both of international
obligations and our own interests, they ought to be excluded
from our ports. What he was anxious to make dear was,
that under the present law they could not carry their neu-
tral obligations fully into effect. What would be the conse-
quence of such precedents to this country in the event of her
being involved in war ? If we were to go to war to-morrow
with Germany there was nothing to prevent the German
Diet having at its command a fleet of small vessels to prey
upon our commerce, without having a port at its disposal.
Saxony, without a sea shore, might possess a fleet. In such
a case either we must submit to the destruction cf our ships,
or they must be transferred to others. He could not imagine
that those who were not now in office, but who soon might
be, would refuse to insure the country against such dangers
to its commerce. They could not daily with the question;
for it was of immense importance; and no one ought to be
deterred from carrying into effect any measure that might
be requisite for the prevention of so great a danger. Indi-
vidual sympathies towards either of the belligerents ought
not adopting measures to avert a calamity
which
saw looming in his view. They
to preventevery shipowner their
might do now that which would save them from retribution
hereafter; but if they missed that opportunity, that which
might have sufficed in time of peace would not be accepted in
time of war. He was anxious to ask Government whether,
in what had occurred at Liverpool they did not see that our
neutral obligations had been infringed, and that our interests
and welfare in the future had been seriously compromised.
(Cheers.)
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said in many things
which fell from his hen. friend he entirely agreed. (Hear,
hear.) No one who had observed the conduct which the
Government had desired to pursue with regard to this west
important subject during the last two years could doubt
that, whether successfully or otherwise, they had endea-
voured to the best of their power to vindicate the laws of
the country, and at the same time to fulfil the obligations of
a sincere and impartial neutrality. He was aware that such
a profession would not commend the assent of those who
had no sympathy with the objects of neutrality. Neverthe-