The Sun.
London, England, 1862-03-12 00:00:00

PUBLIC MONEYS.

Lord R. MONTAGU moved that, in order to strengthen
the check upon the Government in regard to issues of money
for any public service whatever in excess of the sums veted
by Parliament, as well as to secure the just appropriation of
every payment voted to its proper account, a committee be
appointed, to be annually nominated by Mr. Speaker, for the
purpose of revising all estimates or accounts laid before
Parliament ; and that it be an instruction to the committee
to report in what way the present duties and powers of the
Board of Audit should be extended or changed, with a
view to render such board responsible to Parliament alone,
and the head of it not second in rank to any of the perma-
manent officers presiding over other departments, and
also to make the present system of audit available for the
purposes of the public service; and that it be a further in-
struction to such committee to report to this house the
exact period of the financial year when it would be desir-
able that the annual estimates should be presented to Par-
liament, so as to enable the necessary examination of such
estimates or accounts to be completed and reported upon by
such committee before this house proceeds to sanction such
estimates or accounts by a vote of payment in supply.
The hon. member referred to the authority of Mr. Laing
and Sir J. Graham on the subject in support of his motion.
He contended that the mode in which public money was
voted and expended was most disgraceful to the financial
administration of the country, and was far inferior in prin-
cii,le and practice to the system adopted in private places of
business. The noble lord referred to the time of William
111. to show that public money had been improperly applied,
and that legislation was rendered necessary to remedy the
evil. He said that the fact was that a certain amount
might be voted for a: particular department of
the public service, and that was supposed to re-
present the wishes of Parliament. But what
was the reality ? Why, assuredly in the existing sys-
tem a vote might be granted by Parliament for
a specific object, and yet the money might be applied
to an entirely different object. (Hear, hear.)
The noble lord cited the authority of different distinguished
persons, examined before a committee appointed to inquire
into the manner in which the public accounts were
audited to show that the Treasury entirely disregarded the
views of Parliament in reference to a specific application
of votes of money. The noble lord illustrated
his position by reference to various items of public expen-
diture in which certain votes of money had been diverted to
objects different to those for which they were granted,
He quoted extracts from the committee appointed to inquire
into the subject in 1854, in support of what he
asserted, and contended that a practice had grown
up in regard to Parliamentary votes by which the
constitutional authority of the house was certainly super-
seded. He quoted also the authority of M. Fould in regard
to the functions of a legislative assembly as related to the
grants of, and control over, public money. (Hoar, hear.)
He cited resolutions of the house which denoted its
jealousy in regard to the appropriation of public money to
the purposes for which it had been voted, and appealed to
the confession of official witnesses that the whole public
expenditure did not go through the Audit-office, insisting,
therefore, that the Audit Board was a mere illusion and
sham. The remedy was to be found in the recommendation
of the Public Moneys Committee, which were embodied in
hie resolution.
Sir F. BARING said the house should consider whether
the proposal of Lord Robert was likely to produce the effects
he expected. He (Sir Francis) tho ught it would tend rather
to throw difficulties in the way of improvement. Lord
Robert had forgotten that every one of the points he had
adverted to had been considered by the Public Moneys Com-
mittee ; that the Committee had recommended remedies for
the faults in the system ; that some of those remedies had
been adopted, and that others could be carried out. The
house had, therefore, all it wanted, and if the resolution
were assented to every step in improvement would be
stopped till the proposed committee was appointed.
Sir G. BOWYER considered the control of Parliament
imperfect, that the remedy must be found in a system of
audit, and that the audit by the Board was unsatisfactory
and inefficient.

Mr. PEEL observed that most of the recommendations
of the Public Moneys Committee had been carried into
effect, either by the Government or by Act of Parliament.
But it would be difficult for the committee to recognise
their recommendations in the resolution before the house ;
for, though the words were the same, the sense was diffe-
rent, the resolution being made up of separate parts and
passages, with a total disregard of the sense. It had no
claim, therefore, to the favour of the house on the ground
of authority, but must stand upon its own merits alone. He
replied to the objections offered by Lord B. Montagu to the
system under which the public expenditure was controlled,
remarking that the largest portion of the public accounts
was audited by the Board, and there were reasons why the
other portion could be more effectually audited than by the
Board. If the resolution were adopted and the committee
appointed, the effect must be to supersede the house and
the Government in their respective constitutional functions
Mr. J. `MITE thought the inordinate growth of the
expenditure was owing to the gross neglect of Parliament
itself.

Mr. NEWDEGATE supported the resolution, the adop-
tion of which, he said, would only be reverting to the old
system of Parliamentary control over the public expendi-
ture. Though the resolution might not be in exact accord-
ance with the recommendations of the committee, it would
hasten the amendments they recommended.
Mr. AUGUSTUS SMITH likewise supported the reso-
lution. He believed, he said, that the appointment of such
a committee as it proposed afforded the only chance of a
useful examination of the estimates.
The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER observed
that the resolution embraced matters so complicated
that they ought to form subjects of separate debate.:
A part of the matters had been disposed of already ;1
of others the Government had declared their intention td
dispose, and the resolution would obstruct the work of im-,
provement by shutting out the Government from proceed-,
ing in it. He thought the recommendations of the Public',
Moneys Committee would be the best guide to the Govern-
ment and the house.

Sir S. NORTHCOTE suggested that, after what had,
been said in the debate, it would be better not to press the
motion to a division. At the same time he did-not see howl
the resolution would interrupt the Government in the work
of improvement. He hoped they would introduce a Bill!
to define the powers of the Board of Audit.
After a few remarks by Mr. W. WILLIAms,
Lord R. MONTAGU replied, vindicating himself from}
the charge made by Mr. Peel of employing the words
La committee in such a manner as to convoy by their die
location a different sense from that intended by the corn-I
mittee.

Tho hotr_ then
pm:7ll divided, when there appeared—
Against it' 41°n
96
a' •
Mr. HORSFALL .. —65
INTERNATrY
my
MARITIME LAW.
of international maritime br,,,
tose to move—ligerents and neutrals is ilt.d " That the present stat
as affecting the rights of be
of
and unsatisfactory, an
calls for the early attention
to
osithtter to the difficulty o
Ho trusted he was not insensible Majesty's Government.'
the responsibility of submitting
horse at the presen
moment the motion that stood in his
name, and
duty and he should
have rejoiced on many accounts if the du
upon the hon. member for Rochdale (Mr. Cobden),ra.ho at
an early period of the session had given notice of a

THE SUN, LONDON,

motion. But the hon. gentleman, as soon as he became
aware that he (Mr. Horsfall) bad signified his in-
tention to renew his motion of last year,
with the greatest courtesy waived his own right,
stating his readiness to second the present motion. It would
be in the recollection of lion. members who took an interest
in the subject of international maritime law that when he
(Mr. Horsfall) first gave notice of this motion last session
the present unhappy state of things in America did not
exist, and he could not, therefore, have contemplated then
any more than he contemplated now, provoking a discussion
upon the merits of American union or of Southern independ-
ence. (Hear, hear.) He was glad to have that opportunity
not of speaking his own sentiments only but the sentiments
of a large majority of those whom he had the honour to re-
present, when he said that he most cordially approved of
the strict line of neutrality which had been taken by her
Majesty's Government. (Cheers.) His object in mooting
this question at all was to show to the house the very un-
satisfactory state in which our international mercantile law
at present was. Early last session he put a question to the
noble lord the Foreign Secretary, who was then in that
house, as to what steps her Majesty's Government had taken
with the view of carrying out the recommendations of the
shipping committee of the preceding year upon this subject.
The noble lord replied with great frankness that her Ma-
jesty's Government had done nothing ; and from the tone of
the reply the inference was naturally drawn that it was the
intention of her Majesty's Government to do nothing. It '
would be readily supposed that such an answer as that was
anything but satisfactory to those who had taken a deep
interest in this question, and who felt that the unani-
mous recommendation of a committee of that house,
which had sat during a whole session of Parliament, and
which was presided over by the President of the Board
of Trade, deserved greater consideration than appeared to
have been given to it. (Hear, hear.) He would not weary
the house by taking it back into the past history of our
varying international law : his object was to call the atten-
tion of the house to the practical bearing of the law as it at
present existed. But he must remind the house that ante-
cedent to the year 1854 there could be no question of the
fact that privateering was recognised as a principle of inter.
national law ; there could be no question of the fact that
neutral goods on board a belligerent vessel were liable to
capture, and there could be no question that goods the pro-
perty of a subject of a belligerent power on board a neutral
vessel were also liable to capture. (Hear, hear.) This was
felt to be a great hardship, and in that year his right hon.
friend now the President of the Board of Trade, but who
was then unfettered by office, brought forward a motion
with the view of committing the house and the Government
to the principle that from that time forward a neutral flag
should make neutral goods. His right hon. friend did him
the honour to ask him to second his motion, and he had
great pleasure in doing so, and took occasion to urge upon the
attention of the Government the necessity of at the same
time putting an end to privateering. (Hear, hear.) The
noble lord the Foreign Secretary stated that documents would
be issued declaring the views of her Majesty's Government
upon the subject, and in a fortnight from that time the Pre-
sident of the Board of Trade had the satisfaction of seeing
an order in council issued, in which it was declared that—
" To preserve the commerce of neutrals from all necessary
obstructions, her Majesty is willing for the future to waive
a part of the belligerent rights appertaining to her by the
law of nations. It is impossible for her Majesty to forego
the exercise of her right to seize articles contraband of
war, and of preventing neutrals from bearing the enemy's
despatches, and she must maintain the right of a bellige-
rent to prevent neutrals from breaking any effective blockade
which may be established with an adequate force against the
enemy's forts, harbours, or coasts. But her Majesty will
waive the right of seizing enemy's property taken on board
a neutral vessel, unless it be contraband of war. It is not
her Majesty's intention to claim the confiscation of neutral
property, not being contraband of war, found on board
enemy's ships; and her Majesty further declares, that being
anxious as much as possible to lessen the evils of war, and
to restrict its operations to the regularly organised forces of
the country, it is not her present intention to issue letters
of marque for the commissioning of privateers." That was
the first step in the cause Of liberal legislation with regard to
our international maritime law ; but two years after that, in
1856, the conference took place at Paris. The parties to that
conference were England, France, Prussia, Russia, Austria,
Sardinia, and Turkey, and the conclusions which were come
to were these :—" Privateering is and remains abolished.
A neutral flag covers enemy's goods with the exception of
contraband of war. Neutral goods, except contraband of
war, not liable to capture under an enemy's flag. Block-
ades, to be binding, must be effective; that is to say, main-
tained by a force sufficient really to prevent access to the
coast of the enemy. the present declaration shall not be
binding except upon those powers that have acceded or shall
accede to it." Subsequently almost every other power ex-
cept America gave in its adhesion to those principles.
Assuming, then, that that was the acknowledged maritime
international law, the questions which naturally presented
themselves to their notice were these—what will be the
effect of this declaration in the event of war? and what has
been its effect in the time of peace ? Those who know any-
thing of the shippers of goods from this country, and of the
importers of produce, knew at least that they were men of
common sense, and that they would not ship a single
package of goods in a vessel liable to seizure if they had the
opportunity of shipping it in one which was not liable to
seizure. (Hear.) The operation of this law in the event
of war—say with France—would be that every British
ship must be laid by in British ports—no shipper of
goods would ship in the vessel of a belligerent when he
had the power of shipping in a neutral vessel ; neutral ves-
sels would get greatly enhanced freights, and what was
worse still, our British seamen would be drafted from the
British ships lying by, not into her Majesty's navy, but
into the neutral vessels which could and would afford to pay
a much higher rate of wages than ever had been or ever
would be paid in the Royal Navy. (Hear, hear.) Such
would be the result of the present law in the event of war,
and it was a most serious matter for the shipowner, the
manufacturer, and the country. But what had been the
effect already in time of peace ? Those who were acquainted
with the shipping interest of this country knew full well
the effect of a mere rumour of war, as was the case a very
short time age, when it was supposed that we might have
been involved in the difficulties then existing between
France, Austria, and Italy. Supposing a rumour of the
kind, however improbable, reached a distant port, say Can-
ton or Calcutta, and that there was a first class British ship
and a second class American vessel lying there, the effect
would be that the American vessel would get 50 per cent.
more freight than the first class British ship. (Hear, hear.)
This was a most important point, and he was anxious to
refer, in justification of what he had said, to the evidence
of competent authorities taken before the shipping commit-
tee. Mr. Allan Gilmour, one of the largest shipowners in
the world, said the principle that the flag under which a
1 ship sailed should exempt the goods she carried from cap-
ture would operate very prejudicially to British shipping
in the event of a war in which Great Britain was engaged,
and that even now it was very prejudicial to the British
shipowner, because the very rumour of war or difficulty so
enhanced the rate of insurance of British ships that Ame-
rican and other foreign ships had a decided preference. The
witness was asked whether he could suggest a remedy,
and his reply was, " The only remedy is to have an inter-
national law to do away with captures entirely. Ido
not know of anything else." (Hear, hear, and a laugh.)
Or, in other words, to place the ship upon the same footing
as the goods. Mr. Beasley, of Liverpool, in his evidence,
confirmed these opinions, and, as an instance of the effect
of the existing law, mentioned that last May he had a ship
in China which was built at great expense, the order to
the builder being merely, " Build me a ship to beat any
mortal thing afloat"—(a laugh)—to bring the first cargo of
the season. But at that time the Italian difficulty arose,
and in the fear of England becoming involved, the mer-
chants of China determined to ship in American ships, and
paid t. higher freight than they would have had to pay in
first-class British ships. Two American ships obtained
£2 a ton more than Mr. Beasley's. The evidence of Mr.
Greaves, formerly ehairn:an of the Shipowners' Associa-
tion, confirmed the statements of the other two witnesses
as to the injurious effect which the declaration of Paris
must have upon British commerce in the event of a war,
or a rumour of war, in which this country might be en-
gaged. This question was in fact one of great national
importance, affecting not merely shipowners and manufac-
turers, but the whole country. It was also a question of
finance. They knew that in war times merchant ships re-
quired convoy, and he asked whether the men-of war
would not be much better employed in fighting the enemy.
Ho would not look upon it as a question of humanity, al-
though a good deal might be said upon that score. Some
people said, " Make war as bad as possible, and every one
will be glad to have it over." But that was not the gene-
ral feeling of the country, nor was it the feeling of her
Majesty, when in her order in council she declined to issue
letters of marque in order to restrict the miseries of war as
much as possible. Neither was it the feeling of the noble
lord, who on his visit to Liverpool stated to the assembled
merchants that the Government were not inattentive
to other interests besides the grand transactions of
war. It was satisfactory, his lordship said, that at the com-
mencement of the Russian war we made arrangements
which,witheut diminishing our force against our opponents,
yet tended very much to diminish the pressure of the war
upon the mercantile community. His lordship also ex-
pressed a hope that these relaxations might bo still further
extended, and that private property would no longer be ex-
posed to oppression on either side. (Hear.) If, his lordship
added, we looked to the example of former periods,we found
that no powerful country was ever vanquished by losses in-
flicted on individuals, as it was always the fleets and armies
that decided the great question. He (Mr. Horsfall) desired
no better testimony to the truth of his position than the
Queen's order in Council and the admirable speech of the
noble lord. (Hear.) They were told that naval officers
would object to being deprived of their prize money ; he
would not insult the naval officers by entertaining such a
supposition for a moment. He believed they were actuated
by far more patriotic motives. They were told, further, that
treaties were broken when war commenced, but this was
based on the declaration of Paris. On the subject of blockade
he felt bound to say that the sentiments of those he had the
honour to represent were in favour of respecting the block-
ade. He knew there was great difference of opinion on the
subject, but his own views were in favour of the blockade.
i Returning to the main question referred to iA his reiolu-

WEDNESDAY EVENING, MARCH 12,

Lion, he thought America bad not been fairly dealt with
They were told that America would not give up the right of
privateering. Why? Because she contended that we should
put ships and cargoes on the same footing. The hon. member
read some extracts from the blue books, to show that Presi-
dent Pierce had expressed his views to the Paris Congress;
also extracts of Lord Russell's letters to Lord Cowley, in
which the noble lord declined to apply the terms of the con-
vention of Paris to the case of the civil war in America, and
continued. He was there merely to state the views of the
mercantile community. He knew there was great jealousy
of motions of this kind by executive governments, but the
noble lord Woula permit him again to refer to the speech
already quoted, in which the noble lord seemed to give him
(Mr. Horsfall) an express invitation to bring the subject
before th© house. The noble lord said, " The Government
always feels deeply indebted to the great commercial com-
munities, which are kind enough to impart to us from time
to time their suggestions for the remedy of existing evils.
We know well that no executive government can be so per-
fectly informed of all the detailed operations of commerce
as to be able without such assistance to devise those mea-
sures which may be best calculated to set free the industry
of the country and to give the greatest development to com-
mercial enterprise." (Cheers.) It was in answer to that
invitation that he ventured to trespass on the attention of
the house, and he asked it to affirm the resolution which he
had to move in the name of the commerce of the country,
and in the name of humanity, civilisation, and justice.
(Cheers.)

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL said he had expected
some discussion before he was called upon to explain the
views of the Government. It was not to be doubted that
the question was one of great importance and demanding
their most serious attention. But whatever might be the
opinion of the Government, it would of course be impossible
for them to act without consultation with other nations.
He would not stop to occupy the time of the house in en-
tering into a prolonged attempt to discuss the policy of the
law. He believed that the law was well understood and
defined, and his hon. friend had left him but little to say,
because it appeared to him that his hon. friend had satis-
fied himself in the main with a correct statement as to
what was the present state of the law. His hon. friend
had stated truly that privateering was a belligerent right,
and that ships of the enemy were liable to capture, but he
did not state correctly that neutral goods in the enemy's
ships were liable to capture. Perhaps he might have been
misled upon this matter by the proclamation issued by her
Majesty, in which it was stated that it is not the intention
to claim the confiscation of neutral property not being con-
traband of war, if found on board enemies' ships. It might I
have been a very just and expedient proceeding to make the
declaration, that all neutrals whose interests might be con-
cerned might be aware of the terms and conditions upon
which the country would carry on a war; but the hon.
member was wrong in inferring from it that the goods of a
friend on board the ships of an enemy 'were, previous to that
date, liable to capture and confiscation.. So long ago as 1753
these propositions were laid down by the highest authori-
ties in this country, viz., by the Judge of the Prerogative
Court, and assented to by the Advocate-General and the
Attorney-General, afterwards Lord Mansfield. First, that
the goods of an enemy on board the ships of a friend may be
taken ; secondly, that the lawful goods of a friend on board
the ships of an enemy ought to be restored; and thirdly, that
contraband goods going to an enemy, though the property
of a friend, might be taken as prize, because the supplying
an enemy with things with which to carry on the war was
a breach of neutrality. Now, coming to the declaration of
Paris, it would be found that it contained two proposi-
tions which expressed the ancient or former law, and two
only which expressed the altered state of the law, The
first and second propositions introduced new law, and the
first was, "privateering is and remains abolished," and the
second was, "a neutral flag covers enemies' goods with the
exception of contraband of war." The last was the main
burden of the complaint of the hon. member. The third
proposition was, " that neutral goods, with the exception of
contraband of war, are not liable to capture under an
enemy's flag." That was a mere statement of antecedent
law, just as was the last proposition, Niz., " that blockades to
be binding must be effective." With the exception he bad
stated, he quite agreed with what the hon. gentleman had
said as to the law, and he contended that his speech contra-
dicted that portion of his motion which stated that the law
was ill defined, for the hon. gentleman had hiinself clearly
defined it. The law, whether right or wrong, was not in-
volved in any doubt or obscurity, but was free from the
imputation passed upon it by the hon. member. He would
not occupy any considerable portion of the time of the
house in adverting to the other part of the honourable
gentleman's motion. He said that the consequence of the
adoption of the declaration of Paris would in many cases of
war be to give an advantage to neutrals carrying enemies'
goods over the ships of belligerents. No doubt such must
be the case, although he could not agree that the necessary
adoption cf this rule would be to put a stop to the carrying
trade of the belligerents, seeing that if one of the belligerents
was strong at sea, and particularly if mistress of the seas,
the naval force of that power would be able to defend and
protect its mercantile flag, and thus the subjects of the
stronger belligerent power would carry their own goods in
their own ships. Of course it followed that the stronger
belligerent would be able to practically annihilate the com-
merce of the weaker belligerent; whilst its own commerce
would compete with neutrals who would have the benefit of
the declaration of Paris. This declaration was a concession
to neutrals, and he would not discuss the policy of that change
but would only observe that he did not understand his hon.
friend to suggest a doubt whether it was prudent on the
part of this country to accede to that change, so much as
to contend that we ought to go further in case we should
be in a state of war. The exemption for which his hon.
friend contended had no reference to neutrals at all, and it
was one which neutrals would rather should not exist, for
they would prefer their monopoly. What was contended
for as an exception in favour of the subjects of a bellige-
rent power, whose ships it was proposed should receive
protection, so that they could so carry in their own ships
their own goods. Certainly such a change in the law
would go very much beyond any relaxation in the rigour
of the maritime code which had been suggested by
writers upon international law. He did not say because
the proposition was novel that therefere it was not entitled
to great and serious consideration; but whilst he admitted
that it was worthy of consideration, it was, he submitted,
a question whether the house should take upon itself to
express an opinion in conformity with the motion of his hon.
friend, the more especially as anything done in that direc-
tion must be done not by any one Government, but by the
general concurrence of those nations who were likely to be-
come belligerents. He had said that this doctrine had not
been broached until lately, but he would so far correct him-
self asi to say that it appeared from a statement by Benjamin
Franklin that a treaty was entered into between the United
States and Prussia in 1785, in which there was an article in
accordance with what Franklin called his " Quaker no-
tions," it being agreed that the merchant ships of the con-
tending parties should not be liable to capture, but this
article was not inserted in the renewed treaty in 1799 be-
tween the same powers, and certainly from that time down
to the present he was not aware of any serious proposition
having been made between the two nations to mitigate the
old rigour of the maritime law. He felt that ho ought to
apologise for having entered so much into the question of
policy, and he would conclude by stating that as to the
matter of law ho was relieved from any labour by his hon.
friend having himself so well defined the law—he had in
fact disposed of that part of the motion, and there was no
good reason for calling upon the Government to take any
action in reference to the question of policy.
Mr. LIDDELL said the hon. and learned gentleman had
regretted that the hon. member for Liverpool had limited
his argument to only one portion of this great question, and
he (Mr. Liddell) joined with him in that regret, but when
the hon. and learned gentleman went on to state that the
maritime law was not involved in any doubt or obscurity, he
would ask him whether he thought that the law of contra-
band was not involved in obscurity,and also whether the law
of blockade was not at this moment Involved in doubt.
There was a blockade now in force about the legality of
which there were great doubts, and there were doubts as to
what was and was not a privateer. By the declaration of
Paris, by which we for the first time admitted the prin-
ciple that free ships make free goods, we no doubt made a
great concession, which necessarily told most against that
country that had most ships. But not only that, we, at the
very moment we had constituted a naval reserve, gave a
di ect premium to every man of that reserve by the pros-
pect of the higher 'wages he would receive by going into the
service of a ship belonging to some neutral country. He
would give the opinion of an authority on this subject—
that of Earl Russell, who, no longer ago than June, 1857,
in a debate which arose on the motion of the hon. member
for Sunderland, said, " I am afraid we must be bound by
the declaration. lam afraid that the consequences are so
serious as to show that such a declaration was very imiru•
dent ; but I agree that England ought to uphold her mari-
time superiority. The whole matter is most unsatisfactory.
Tho state of this question is to me most alarming, but I do
not see that a breach of faith would at all mend our posi-
tion." He (Mr. Liddell) agreed with the noble bond that
we should not mend our position by a breach of faith; for
if we did there would again be a combination against us of
all the European Powers. The policy of America was not
to interfere in European politics, and in case of any Euro-
pean war in which We should be engaged, she would be
neutral, and take the benefit that would accrue to her from
that position. He wanted to know why, having abandoned
the position of our maritime code, for which we had fought
so stoutly, we should not take full advantage of the conces •
sion that we had made. •He believed that it was for the in-
terest of England that we should carry on our commerce
during war with our own ships. Why should we not
study the interest of our manufacturers, and at the same
time prevent ruin from coming on our shipowners ? Why
Y the interest of neutrals by saying we
should
wot would
od y onlyneutrals
ewe study u
ts
rtallowal
our commerce to be carried on during
s instead of carrying it on ourselves ? This
country lost largely by issuing the orders in Council
war
which were intended to counteract the effect of the Milan
and Berlin decrees. That policy of our Government de-
prived us of exports to the value of ten or twelve millions
y ear. Nor did we obtain either glory or profit by block-
ading the ports of Russia when we went to war with
that country in 1854. The result of that blockade was that
through neutral ports to this country, and that the Una IRA
the tallow, and hemp, and linseed of Russia found its way