Services. This was a reduction of 218,0007. on last year, but the Estimates had not been yet reduced to the level of what he called the normal year 1870-71, which he attributed to the large sums, amounting to 1,000,000l. odd, spent on an entirely new department of our Navy, ships of the "Rupert" and "Cyclops" classes and gunboats, all intended for home defence. It was not intended, however, to spend any more large sums on these defensive vessels, it being thought that we are strong enough in that respect. Mr. Goschen went into considerable detail in accounting for the decreases and increases in the various Votes, dwelling for some time on the Wages Vote, which gave him the opportunity of relating what is being done for manning the Navy and maintaining the Reserves. The force taken this year is the same as last, 61,000 men and boys, and he showed by the returns the unfounded character of the rumour that the service is unpopular, and that there is any difficulty in getting men. He explained next certain changes in the mode of recruiting boys, and in the inducements held out to men to join the Reserves. Among other things it is in contemplation to require as a condition for a pension that a man must join the Reserve, and a plan is in preparation to raise a body of Naval Volunteers at every port in connexion with the gunboats building for Coast Defence. From the concurrent testimony of all Naval officers who had recently returned from service, Mr. Goschen contradicted the assertions that our ships are undermanned, or that there is any deterioration in the character of our men. Passing from this he explained at great length the changes proposed in the education of officers, which embrace the establishment of a Naval College at Greenwich, with which will be combined the Kensington School of Naval Architecture. Cadets will be taken hereafter at the age of fifteen instead of thirteen, and sent to sea for three years, after one year's training on shore; and a training brig for instruction in seamanship is to be attached to the Mediterranean Fleet. Next he touched on the Retirement question, and then coming to the shipbuilding programme he considered this under four heads-What have we got? What do we want? What is proposed to be done? and Where? The first two points led him into a comparison of the relative strength of other naval Powers, and into a vindication of our recent types of men-of-war-the "Devastation" and "Rupert." The shipbuilding programme of the year contemplates the building of 20,400 tons, of which 3000 are by contract. In the first place all the ships in progress are to be completed except the "Fury," two new first-class ironclads are to be laid down, as well as a corvette of the "Blanche" class, two large covered corvettes, five sloops, eight gunboats, and a torpedo ship of 540 tons. Notwithstanding the recommendation of the Committee of Designs to the contrary, one of the ironclads is to be a first-class sea-going cruiser on the broadside principle, with improvements for bow-firing. The character of the second ironclad will not be decided until the "Devastation " has been tried at sea; and it is also proposed to try an experiment on the "Glatton" by

firing one of the "Rupert's" 25-ton guns at her turret. Finally, he explained his policy in regard to stores and the increase in the Admiralty vote, and concluded by reminding the Committee that a large portion of the money voted for the Fleet is spent on purposes entirely apart from offensive and defensive warfare, and in which the whole civilized world is interested.

Mr. Stansfeld declined, on the plea of insufficiency of time, to comply, in the present year, with the recommendations of Sir Charles Adderley's Committee by consolidating the various Sanitary Acts into a consistent and intelligible code. On the same ground all the provisions of the Bill, except the clauses by which the sanitary authorities are constituted, were afterwards abandoned. With the aid of a manual which the Government has undertaken to compile in anticipation of a Consolidating Bill, the Boards of Guardians will be enabled to introduce many sanitary improvements. The inspectors and medical officers will probably supply, under the influence of professional zeal, some of the probable deficiencies of the constituted authorities.

On the whole, although Scotch as well as Irish members have occasionally complained of Parliamentary neglect, the results of the Session ought to satisfy a reasonable appetite for legislation. The conduct of business has been facilitated by the appropriation of Monday sittings to Supply, although the change was denounced as an infringement on the privileges of private members. In a former Session, Mr. Gladstone had asserted that the House of Commons must either modify its rules of procedure or abdicate its supreme control over legislation and government. The House itself is, not unwisely, jealous of its traditions; and a series of resolutions, moved by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, for alterations of the standing orders, were but coldly received. His proposal for an abolition of the rule which enables a single member to demand the exclusion of strangers was, after some debate, adjourned, and not afterwards reproduced. The Government was compelled to content itself with the concession of Monday evenings, and, on the other hand, ambitious private members find year by year additional difficulty in carrying Bills through Parliament. The reaction which has succeeded to the political excitement of two or three years ago has found expression in more than one recent address to public meetings. Mr. Harcourt, who in graver matters is not the least exacting among the critics of the Government, lately complained at Oxford of the morbid activity of minute legislation, and Mr. Bruce reminded an audience at the Mansion House that Parliament had recently provided, not only for the safety of miners, but for the preservation of the sparrow on the house-top, and of the robin on the bough. He also stated that, within a limited period, four thousand Acts of Parliament had been added to the Statute Book. The House sat, altogether, for 142 hours after midnight this Session-that is more than the average number in recent years. In July, when the "eleventh hour" was come, the House sat, altogether, for nearly

43 hours after midnight, an unusual number for even that month in recent years. The House of Commons divided 287 times this Session, being a larger number than in either of the two next preceding. There were 277 divisions on public Bills and 10 on private Bills. As many of the 115 of the former class of divisions occurred after midnight, this is almost exactly the same number as in 1871, but 38 more than in 1870. The largest division was on June 28, on the Lords' Amendments of the Ballot Bill-304 voted against, and 230 for, the Amendment under consideration. There were 63 divisions on the Ballot Bill; 31 on the Scotch Education Bill; and 24 on the Licensing (Public-houses) Bill. In the Session of 1872 Parliament passed 190 private Bills-89 relating to railways; 11 to tramways; 4 to other roads and bridges; 13 to waterworks; 8 to ports, piers, harbours, and docks; 2 to canals and navigation; 2 to churches or burial-grounds; 20 to paving, lighting, and improving; 1 to county buildings; 6 to markets; 1 to drainage; 25 miscellaneous; 7 estates Bills; and 1 naturalization Bill.

CHAPTER IV.

Proceedings under the Treaty of Washington-Rules of International Duty embodied in the Treaty-The American " Case" raising the Indirect ClaimsDebate thereon in the Senate-In Parliament on the Queen's Speech-Discussions on the meaning of the Commissioners as to these Claims-Draft Article proposed by Britain to the United States to get rid of them-Proceedings thereuponMeeting of the Tribunal of Arbitration-Rejection by it of the Indirect ClaimsDecision and Award-Statements of the several Arbitrators-The Treaty adopted by the Canadian Parliament-Award of the Emperor of Germany in the San Juan Arbitration.

IN the ANNUAL REGISTER for 1871 the conclusion of the Treaty of Washington, in May of that year, and the discussion respecting it in Parliament in August, were mentioned; as well as the ratification of the Treaty by the United States' Senate. English dissatisfaction with some portions of the arrangements already evinced itself in that discussion. It was felt that the exclusion from the list of subjects to be submitted to the Joint High Commission of the claims of Canada in respect of the Fenian "raids," was, in point of fact, the deliberate omission from our side of the account of claims of which we had a moral right to demand the settlement, and which were also of importance in counterbalancing the allegations so perseveringly made on the part of the States of unfriendly conduct and sentiments on the part of Britain during their great civil war. It was felt, also, and by experienced politicians more seriously, that the statement of certain principles of international law, not hitherto specifically admitted, as legal and conclusive for the purposes of the arbitration, was a very dangerous concession,

not only with reference to the pending question itself, but to our political interests in the event of future differences with other maritime Powers, or between other maritime Powers. The "rules" which had been prepared by the American Commissioners, and acceded to by the English, at Washington, in April, 1871, ran as follows:

"That a neutral Government is bound, first, to use due diligence to prevent the fitting out, arming, or equipping, within its jurisdiction, of any vessel which it has reasonable ground to believe is intended to cruise or carry on war against a Power with which it is at peace; and also to use like diligence to prevent the departure from its jurisdiction of any vessel intended to cruise or carry on war as above, such vessel having been specially adapted, in whole or in part, within such jurisdiction, to warlike use.

"Secondly. Not to permit or suffer either belligerent to make use of its ports or waters as the base of naval operations against the other, or for the purpose of the renewal or augmentation of military supplies or arms, or the recruitment of men.

"Thirdly. To exercise due diligence in its own ports or waters, and as to all persons within its jurisdiction, to prevent any violation of the foregoing obligations and duties.

"It being a condition of this understanding that these obligations should in future be held to be binding internationally between the two countries.

"The American Commissioners," it was added, "referring to the hope which they had expressed on the 8th March, inquired whether the British Commissioners were prepared to place upon record an expression of regret by Her Majesty's Government for the depredations committed by the vessels whose acts were now under discussion; and the British Commissioners replied that they were authorized to express, in a friendly spirit, the regret felt by Her Majesty's Government for the escape, under whatever circumstances, of the 'Alabama' and other vessels from British ports, and for the depredations committed by those vessels. The American Commissioners accepted this expression of regret as very satisfactory to them, and as a token of kindness, and said they felt sure it would be so received by the Government and people of the United States."

These rules were represented by those who criticized the proceedings of Government as innovations on the established principles of international law, assented to on our side merely by way of concession to American feeling. On the other side it was contended that they only expressed in definite language what had been already impliedly recognized as the law of nations.

But although these difficulties were serious enough, and tended greatly to increase the unpopularity of the entire arbitration scheme not only with a large political party, but with the public in general, another cause of dissension, which very nearly led to the total failure of the negotiation, was as yet undeveloped. This was the determination on the part of America to press her so-called "indirect" claims:

those growing out of the acts of the cruisers, of whose proceedings complaint was made, consequentially and not immediately.

The English "Case," which was submitted to the Arbitrators appointed under the Treaty in January of this year, contained no reference whatever to this inopportune and, as it subsequently turned out, unnecessary difficulty. Its contents were briefly and accurately summarized in the newspapers :

"The Case sets out by expressly limiting the subject in dispute. According to the views which we present to the Arbitrators, the claims referred to the tribunal are claims 'growing out of the acts' of certain vessels in respect of which the Government of the United States alleges that Great Britain has failed to perform some international duty. The tribunal is reminded that these vessels have not been designated by name, but are only indicated by reference to a particular class of claims, which are assumed in the Treaty to have become familiar to both Governments. The only vessels in respect of the acts of which any claims have been made by the Government of the United States up to the present time are the 'Alabama,' the Florida,' the Georgia,' and the 'Shenandoah.' On one occasion since the war mention was indeed made in an American despatch of a vessel called the 'Sumter'-but no claims in respect of this vessel were made then or since. The Queen's Government therefore assumes, as the basis of the proceedings, that the only question for the Arbitrators is, whether and how far England has been guilty of a breach of international law with respect to these four vessels, and is liable to the claims 'growing out of their acts?'

"This position, if sanctioned by the Arbitrators, reduces the case to certain definite issues, on which evidence may be presented for or against. But as the nature of the war, the belligerent character of both the parties to it, and the law of nations with respect to the export of warlike material and the non-liability of the neutral for the acts of individual citizens who engage at their own risk in such a practice as blockade running, may be elements in a proper consideration of our dealings with these four vessels, the British Case makes an 'introductory statement' of events which attended and followed the commencement of the Civil War, and of the course pursued in relation to it by Great Britain and other naval Powers.

"It is urged that what the United States Government now calls an 'insurrection,' was really a war between two States of vast geographical area, of great resources, and unflinching determination; that the armies of the North were overthrown in Virginia, and only succeeded in reconquering the territory of the Confederate States after a conflict of four years; that the North did, in fact, recognize the conflict as a war by the proclamation of blockade, by the seizure and condemnation of neutral ships, the number of vessels captured or destroyed by vessels of the United States during the war, for breach of blockade or in battle, exceeding 1200. To these facts the British Government applies the following general