Rutland weekly herald. [volume] (Rutland, Vt.) 1859-1877, 1872-03-28
The Washington Treaty


In the House Of Lords, this evening
Earl Derby, in accordance with ii 1c
tice given on Thursday night, proPo:@
his question as 10 the course the G0veg-
ment intended to pursue with regard e
the treaty Of Washington. He hop--
that the Minister Of Foreign affg.a
would be able to state that Her Mas
/ tvs Government was prepared to ma.--
tain the ground taken at the begiuLi-.
Of the present session, and decline to a5
nit the claims made for indirect damage
by the American Government before tit
Geneva tribunal. All know the public
anxiety was great. II was an aIomal9a
state of things, that while all the news
/ papers Of the country were Gscuss.l=
this question, Parliament should be f-
hidden to debate il. He warned tie
. Government that the doctrine that th-y
had already sacrificed much for pea.e
and had better give than fail was dan
gerous. He asked further, if Grca
Britain would appear before the Cene-
/ Board under the circumstances.
Earl Granville replied, that Mr.. Cad
stone. and he himself had already give
an answer 10 these questions. TO whlc.
nothing could he added at present. Com
plete publicity az this iucture was fm
possible
The Earl OF Malmesbury objected .
the continued silence Of Parliament. il
the treaty Of Washington had been dis
cussed last year. the present difficult
would have been avoided
Lord Westbury spoke in coudemnatiy-
of the conduct Of the American Govern
mcnt. It had been distinctly promise
that indirect damages would not be pail
and it would be contrary TO Englan5
honor to admit them after such a mutus.
understanding.
Earl Granville intimatcd that the t--sn
had been misunderstood.
In the House of Commons. te-tsl.
William Johnston, member for Beltag.
moved a resolution that in the opinion
of the House the government. in recon.
ly prohibiting the celebration al Lon
donderry while allowing party demon
stations in Dublin and Cork, eyince5s
spirit Of Partially highly 10 be on.
DENIED.
Mr.. Johnston addressed the House il
support of his motion. He showed that
this was not the first time the govern
ment had left undisturbed the Feria
amnesty meetings and professions which
We're directly contrary to law, while
loyal demonstrations at Derry Were re-
gularly prohibited.
Lord Yarmouth, member for Antrim.
seconded the motion.
The Marquis. of Harrington, CHIEF
Secretary for Ireland, defended tas
course pursued by the government Ii
had not proceeded under the party pro-
cessions act but according to comIo-
law, it knew that a breach Of the peace
was certain in case a celebration took
place at Derry. No such apprehensi5as
were felt in regard to the demonsta
tons in Dublin or Cork. He declared
that the party procession act was not Hs-
quired, and announced that he intend
ed to propose bill repeating It.
Mr.. Patten doubted the government,
impartiality. He hoped that both par
ties in Ireland would give up these pro
cessions.
Mr.. MCGUIRE deprecated the revivaoI
questions which only tended to perpstr-
ate enmity.
Richard Drowsee, member for Lon
donderry, defended his constituents, but
of the action of the govern
ment. These party demonstrations weIs
Illegal and productive of bloodshed, and
if they were continued, any government
undertaking TO rule Ireland would find
difficulty, The government had put
stop to the Waterloo celebrations II
England because they offended the sus
capabilities of the French. He COM
mended the example of England in sub.
hitting quietly 10 this prohibition, 10
the people of Ireland.
Speeches were also made by ViscouDs
Chrichton, Sir Henry Bruce and Others
Disraei closed the debate.