MR. SCLATER-BOOTH replied, that the arrangement stated in the Question had reference only to the arrival and departure of the Mails from Southampton, whereas an interval of five days was in fact allowed for answering letters if the answers were transmitted vid Marseilles. The additional postage was only 4d., and he thought there could be no reasonable objection to that charge. The arrangement might produce inconvenience in some quarters; but it had been adopted, after careful consider ation and full consultation with the best authorities on the subject, as the one most convenient to the public, and he feared that it would be impossible to make any alteration withont great additional expense and considerable inconvenience to the public of New South Wales and Victoria. BRITISH REGIMENTS IN NEW ZEALAND. QUESTION. MR. GORST said, he wished to ask the Under Secretary of State for the Colonies, Whether the New Zealand Government has wholly refused to fulfil the conditions upon which a British Regiment is stationed in that Colony free of charge; Whether the sums appropriated during the last two years to Native purposes by the New Zealand Assembly, instead of the £50,000 per annum stipulated for, have not in fact been £23,751 and £24,058 respectively; and upon what conditions it is now intended to station a British Regiment in New Zealand free of charge to the Colony, and what are the grounds for supposing that such conditions will be accepted and fulfilled by the New Zealand Government? MR. ADDERLEY, in reply, said, he had to state to the House that there was no intention to retain a single British Regiment in New Zealand, and that, he thought, would dispose of the hon. Gentleman's whole Question. METROPOLITAN BOARD OF WORKS. QUESTION. COLONEL SYKES said, he wished to ask the Secretary to the Treasury, Whether he will compare the Returns from the Metropolitan Board of Works, Numbers 17 of the present and 123 of the last Session, and call upon the Board to explain the apparent discrepancies between the two Returns in respect to the total sum borrowed, the debt outstanding, the rates collected, and the total amount expended upon works; and whether he will lay such explanations upon the table of the House? MR. SCLATER-BOOTH, in reply, said, he did not think the Returns would on comparison be found contradictory. They were quite compatible, the one being made up to the 31st of December and the other to the 31st of March; one of the Returns referred only to the transactions under the Main Drainage Acts, the other to the whole of the transactions of the Metropolitan Board of Works, but if the hon. and gallant Member wished for information in a different form he would be happy to confer with him privately on the subject. ARMY-OFFICERS OF THE LATE INDIAN NAVY. QUESTION. MR. SURTEES said, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for India, Whether, as Captain B. Hamilton, of the late Indian Navy, having been duly promoted to his present rank after being upwards of thirty-three years in the Service, and guaranteed by the Act 21 & 22 Vict. c. 106, s. 56, his pay, pension, and privileges, the guarantee has not been broken by placing him, for the loss of his professional prospects on the abolition of the Indian Navy, on only the same amount of compensation as that allotted to his juniors in rank and inferiors in amount of pay (namely, the junior Commanders), on the plea that his promotion only took place one month and eighteen days before the abolition of the Indian Navy; whether, as every Officer junior to Captain Hamilton, promoted on the same day as he was, receives a higher amount of compensation than any Officer of an inferior grade (irrespective of length of service of Officers of different grades), the guarantee has not been broken by | Government of India were no parties to Captain Hamilton being deprived of this the action; it was brought by a private privilege on attaining to his present rank; individual. The costs already amounted to and, whether, as Captain Hamilton was £3,000, and probably they would ultimately guaranteed by the Act 21 & 22 Vict. an fall on the Indian Government, who had alunemployed pay of £480 per annum as ready advanced £15,000. He (Sir Stafford per Indian Naval Code, section 13, para- Northcote) had addressed a letter to the graph 59, the guarantee has not been Company, urging them to bring the probroken by placing him on a compensation ceedings to a speedy conclusion, and he was of only £450 per annum for the loss of his happy to state that the Directors had apfull pay of an average of £1,300 per plied to the arbiter to fix continuous sitannum, £50 of this sum being made up tings. by the sale to the Secretary of State for India of Captain Hamilton's right to the reversion of a pension of £800 per annum ? SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE, in reply, said, he did not think it necessary to go into all the points of the hon. Gentleman's Question. There was nothing special in the case referred to. The officers in question were treated in all respects as other officers of the same rank. There was nothing in the guarantee given which restrained the Government of India from abolishing the Indian Navy, giving pensions to the officers in proportion to their rank and services. There was no violation of the guarantee in that respect. Captain Hamilton was a captain of very short standing, and he came within a certain class of pensions that were offered. He might either have had a pension of £400 a year, with a chance of obtaining a higher, or £450 certain, and after full consideration he accepted £450 absolutely. There was no intention of offering him any more. INDIA-THE SINDH RAILWAY. VISCOUNT CRANBORNE said, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for India, Whether the case of Bray v. the Sindh Railway, which has been under arbitration for seven years is likely, soon to be brought to an early conclusion? SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE said, he might perhaps be excused from replying to the noble Lord's Question in the Scotch fashion, by putting to him another-what did he mean by an early conclusion?' The action was commenced in 1860, and INDIAN FINANCE.-QUESTION. MR. CRAWFORD said, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for India, Whether it is true that a telegram has been received from India that day containing the heads of the Financial Statement submitted by the Finance Minister to the Governor General in Council; and, whether the right hon. Baronet will have any objec tion to state the result? SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE said, in reply, that he had that day received a telegram from India, and he was happy to say that the Financial Statement which had just been made by Mr. Massey was of a very satisfactory character. The surplus of the present year was estimated at £800,000, and that for the coming year 1868-9 at £230,000, after providing for all charges except those for irrigation. The surplus for the present year, with the unexpended balance of 1865-6 would be applied to cover the charge for the irrigation works for 1868-9. No loan was proposed in the Budget for the coming year and no new taxation. COLONEL SYKES: Does that statement include the Home charges? SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE: It has nothing to do with the Home charges. was referred to arbitration in 1861. The arbitration was going on and there had already been 169 sittings; it was not likely, he feared, the arbitration would be concluded for some time. It was, how-to ever, a question of some difficulty. The THE ARMY ESTIMATES.-QUESTION. CAPTAIN VIVIAN said, he would beg ask the Secretary of State for War, Whether he will make his Statement with reference to the Army Estimates that night? SIR JOHN PAKINGTON said, it was his intention to make his Statement that night, provided he had an opportunity of doing so before nine o'clock. ECCLESIASTICAL COMMISSIONERS ORDERS IN COUNCIL BILL.-QUESTION. MR. GLADSTONE said, he would beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department, Whether the Government intend to proceed that night with this Bill, which was simply a retrospective one; what view the Government took of the Orders in Council which they propose to confirm; and, whether they intend to extend the application of the Bill to similar Orders in Council which may be passed in future? MR. GATHORNE HARDY said, in reply, that the Bill would be taken on Monday, so as to enable those hon. Members who were absent, and who desired to take part in the discussion upon it, to be in attendance. The Bill in question was specifically drawn with a retrospective object; but it might become necessary to legislate with regard to the future this subject. upon COMPULSORY CHURCH RATES ABOLI TION BILL.-QUESTION. MR. WALPOLE said, it was proposed to Re-commit this Bill to-night for the purpose of adding two clauses to it, and then to read it a third time. He wished to point out to the right hon. Gentleman (Mr. Gladstone) that such a course was a very unusual one, and to ask him, Whether he had any objection to permit the Bill to be re-printed after the new clauses were added, and to take the third reading on some other evening? MR. GLADSTONE said, that if such were the desire of hon. Gentlemen he could have no hesitation in acceding to the proposal. House to the effect of the Law regulating the allegiance of subjects of the Queen who have emigrated to Foreign countries, and especially to the United States of America, and to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, Whether he does not think that the time is opportune for attempting to arrive at a mutual understanding between Her Majesty's Government and the Government of the United States respecting the right of expatriation? felt that, as he was not a lawyer, he ought, perhaps, to apologize to the House for introducing this Question to its notice. He believed that the claims made by this country in connection with this subject had operated greatly to our disadvantage in our intercourse with foreign nations, and the time had now arrived when we might properly inquire whether it would not be for our interest to modify those claims to some extent. The present state of the law had caused ill-blood between us and the United States, and there was danger of its doing so again. In order to bring the subject fully before the House it would be necessary for him to refer briefly to the law upon this question as it stood at present. As far as he could make it out, there appeared to be two classes of British subjects-those who were so by the common law, and those who were so by the statute law. By the common law all persons born within the dominions of the Queen were British subjects, notwithstanding the fact that their parents might be foreigners who were within those dominions merely on a visit. The child of French parents who was born in this country, or of American parents who was born in Canada, was a British subject, and must be so to the end of his life. There were two ways by which persons might become British subjects under the statute law-firstly, by being naturalized, under certain conditions, by Act of Parliament; and secondly, in the reign of George II., which enacted under the provisions of two Acts, one passed that all children of British subjects who might be born out of Her Majesty's dominions were entitled to the privileges of BriGeorge III., which extended those privitish subjects, and the other in the reign of leges to the grandchildren of British subjects born abroad, even though the fathers had never been in the King's dominions. There was, however, this difference between the natural-born subject and the children and grandchildren of British subjects born abroad, that allegiance was claimed from the former alone. It had been stated by laid down "That the quality of a Frencha very able writer in The Times, who wrote man is lost by naturalization in a foreign under the name of " Historicus," that it country," the French principle being that was a question whether we did not claim" personne ne peut avoir deux patries;" allegiance from the children and grand- although it was true that Napoleon in children of British-born subjects, even al- 1811 declared that all Frenchmen who though their parents had been all their should change their nationality without the lives abroad. Well, if we did, we should consent of the State should be liable to claim at least half the population of the certain penalties. Prussia went almost as United States. A similar opinion as to far in the other direction as we stopped our claims appeared to be prevalent in short of it, and adopted a principle which America, and a portion of the excitement he trusted would never be accepted in a in that country was, doubtless, owing to commercial country like this-that a citizen that notion. He thought that was an er- lost his privileges not only by his own reroneous opinion, as the statutes appeared quest, or by sentence of a competent authoto be enabling rather than compulsory. rity, but also by residing ten years in a The noble Lord the Secretary of State for foreign country. But the matter was set Foreign Affairs would correct him if he upon what he regarded as the proper footing were wrong when he said that the British by the Italian Code, which was said to be Government had never attempted to claim the newest and the best edition of the Code allegiance from those persons. The law, Napoléon. By that code the rights of however, upon the point was far from clear, citizenship were lost by declaration of reand it would be well for Parliament to de- nunciation made before a civil authority fine the extent of our claims, so that there and subsequent residence in a foreign could be no doubt upon this branch of the country; by accepting employment from a subject. The law respecting the British- foreign State, or entering into its military born subject was, however, perfectly clear, service, without the consent of the Italian and it asserted that by no act of his own Government; or, finally, by becoming nacould the British-born subject get rid of turalized in a foreign country. The dochis allegiance to the Crown. He might trine which was upheld by this country go to other countries-he might enter the was upheld by ourselves alone, and this French army and become a French field- was the more astonishing, inasmuch as no marshal he might become a citizen of the country furnished such a number of emiUnited States and a member of the United grants to all parts of the world. But there States Congress-but still his allegiance was also this remarkable fact, that we had was claimed by the British Crown. Upon been compelled to give up the principle on this point Blackstone, in defining the con- which it was founded. Originally that ditions of allegiance, saidprinciple was, that while we claimed the allegiance of all British subjects we in return afforded them protection. Blackstone distinctly stated in his Commentaries that National allegiance is such as is due from all men born within the King's dominions immediately upon their birth. It cannot be forfeited, such was the case cancelled, or altered by any change of time, place, or circumstance, nor by anything but the united concurrence of the Legislature. An Englishman "Local allegiance is such as is due from an alien who removes to France or to China owes the same or stranger born, for so long a time as he conallegiance to the King of England there as at tinues within the King's dominion and protechome, and twenty years hence as well as now. For tion, and it ceases the instant such stranger transit is a principle of universal law that the natural-fers himself from this kingdom to another. Natuborn subject of one Prince cannot by any act of his own-no, not by swearing allegiance to another-put off or discharge his natural allegiance to the former." It was rather remarkable that this was the only country which carried its claims to allegiance to this extent. On the Continent they treated the matter not so much as the claim of the Sovereign to the allegiance of the subject, which never could be broken; but rather as the right of the citizen to assistance and to privileges which, under certain circumstances, he might forfeit. Thus the Code Napoléon, cap. 1, VOL. CXC. [THIRD SERIES.] ral allegiance is perpetual, local allegiance is only temporary; and that for this reason, evidently founded upon the nature of government, that alle giance is a debt due from the subject, upon an implied contract with the Prince, that so long as the one affords protection, so long will the other demean himself faithfully." But we had found it impossible to carry out that principle, and a curious proof of the fact was furnished during the course of the late American civil war. Thousands upon thousands of English and Irish emigrants in America endeavoured to claim exemption from the conscription and from 3 S enrolment during that war; but we found it impossible to assert their right to exemption, after they had taken any step towards renouncing their allegiance to the English Crown. Consequently we gave up all idea of affording them protection, but we still claimed to regard them as subjects of the Queen. Now, by the United States' Census of 1860, it appeared that at that time about 4,100,000 persons in the United States were born abroad. Of these about 2,450,000 were subjects of the Queen; no less than 1,600,000 of them having been born in Ireland. Yet most of these persons were citizens of the United States; nearly all intended to be. The House was perhaps aware of the oath that was taken by an alien desiring to become a citizen of the United States. It ran as follows: "I, A B, do declare on oath that I will support the Constitution of the United States, and that I do entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to every foreign prince, potentate, State, or sovereignty whatever, particularly (here came the name of the Sovereign of the country in which the person was born) to Victoria, Queen of Great Britain and Ireland." The oath could not be taken before the person had resided in America for five years. But some time before taking this oath another was necessary, as follows:"I do declare my intention to become a citizen of the United States, and to renounce for ever all allegiance and fidelity to every," &c. Those were the oaths that were taken by a vast number of emigrants, and it would be useless to attempt to disguise the fact that, in the case of a great number of the emigrants, the oaths were taken with a full cognizance of their meaning, with a full intention of keeping them and never returning to our shores, and that a large number were very glad to have the opportunity of renouncing their allegiance to the Queen of England. But, by the law of England, their right to attach themselves to America was denied. The question was, whether it was desirable for England, when no other country in Europe put forward such a claim to insist upon such a law with reference to a nation so nearly connected with us as the United States? What had been the result of this claim upon the relation of England to the United States? There were many persons in America who undoubtedly wished to make it work as badly as possible, and they were somewhat encouraged in this by the way in which the law had worked in times past; for it was this conflict of allegiance that gave rise to the war between ourselves and the United States in 1812, which resulted from our claiming to take British seamen out of American ships. The Americans had a great deal to say for themselves in this matter. That that was really the ground was evident from the Prince Regent's declaration in reply to the President's proclamation of war than the right which a Sovereign has to the alle "There is no right more clearly established giance of his subjects, more especially in time of war. Their allegiance is no optional duty, which they can decline and resume at pleasure. It is a their birth and can only terminate with their call which they are bound to obey--it began with existence." That certainly appeared to be an argument that we were still asserting abroad. We were now in this difficulty :-Some of the Irish emigrants to America, who having joined the Fenian organization, had returned to Ireland, were arrested there. They claimed the rights of American citizens; and those rights were, as must be the case, under the present state of the law, refused to them, because by law they were British subjects. The House was doubtless aware of two or three cases where the difficulty had recently arisen. There was, for instance, the case of Captain Warren, the leader of the Jacmel expedition, in whose trial Chief Baron Pigott refused a mixed jury, stating that he was still a British subject, and that "According to the law of England-a law which has been administered without any variation or doubt from the very earliest times-he who once is under the allegiance of the English Sovereign remains so for ever." The result of these cases had been considerable excitement in America. Numbers of meetings had been held, and the matter had been brought before Congress. He was perfectly aware that the excite ment had been increased by interested parties-by agents of the Fenian conspiracy and that there had been great exag geration. It had been stated that American citizens had been arrested in England on account of acts committed in America, and other statements equally devoid of foundation had been spread abroad. But still the excitement had been considerable. One doctrine, among others, that had been brought forward in the American House of Representatives, but brought forward, he was glad to say, only to be denounced by all present who possessed any influence, was that, if we persisted in our claims, our action should be met by reprisals. It was |