HC Deb 25 May 1837 vol 38 cc1080-4
Mr. Mackinnon

rose to move for "a Select Committee for the purpose of taking into consideration the claims of D'Arcy Talbot, Esq., and other claimants on the French Compensation Fund." The House would not by the result of the decision of such a Committee dip into the public purse, but merely apply certain funds now in the hands of the Government. Those funds had been granted by the Government of France in 1815, and had been vested in Commissioners for distribution to the claimants, among whom was D'Arcy Talbot, Esq., a Roman Catholic Gentleman of the highest respectability. His claim was for 31,000 francs; it was one not to be contradicted, and he had in-formed the first Commissioner, that he should require more time than would elapse before they made their award to produce the documents necessary to satisfy them of his right. The first award had been made in 1820. In 1826 another allotment was made, and, although the documents were forthcoming, yet the claims of Mr. Talbot were not regarded, because the Commissioners did not consider themselves empowered to investigate any other claims than those preferred after the making of the first award. In 1830, by an Act of Parliament, a new set of Commissioners were appointed, with powers to decide on all proper claims. To this Commission Mr. D'Arcy Talbot submitted his claim, and what did the Commissioners do? They refused to listen to his application, on the ground that there was a distringas laid upon the money which he claimed while in the hands of the French Government, as early as 1793, by a M. Calambourt, and that unless they had some further proof they could not allow the money to be paid until the distringas was removed. "But," said the Commissioners, "we will pay you the interest on the money," and accordingly a sum of 4,000 livres, and another sum of 1,535 livres, were paid to him by the Commissioners, who thereby admitted the claim, and his right to the principal. Now he asked whether this did not form a case to go before a Committee? It must be borne in mind that there were ample funds to defray those claims in the hands of his Majesty's Government, which had been handed over to them by the Commissioners of his Majesty's Woods and Forests, and therefore nothing would be taken out of the pockets of the people. The noble Lord who led the House, and the right hon. Gentleman, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, had supported the claims of Mr. D'Arcy Talbot while they sat on the oppositions de of he House, and he hoped, therefore, that he right hon. Gentleman would now neither "wheel about nor turn about," nor refuse to entertain a claim which he had formerly supported with all that brilliancy of talent for which he was distinguished. The hon. Member concluded by moving for a Select Committee.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer

said, the House could not enter upon the question in its present shape, and even if it were presented in a modified form, there would be an objection to the proposition which, in his judgment, would prove insurmountable. In the first place the hon. Member asserted, that there were sufficient funds to meet those claims in the hands of the Commissioners of Woods and Forests. Now, first as to the matter of fact, and then as to the matter of argument. There were no such funds in the hands of the Commissioners of Woods and Forests, although there were some years back. He trusted, however, whether the money was sought from the Woods and Forests, or by a vote from that House, the result would be the same, and that an endeavour would be made, both in the one case and the other, to do what was just. Reference had been made to his own opinions on a former occasion, but he trusted that no Member of that House would be induced to give his vote on the opinion of an individual Member of Parliament, delivered too upon a former occasion. He did not contend in 1828 that the House itself ought to take cognizance of this matter, but only that his right hon. Friend should take the claims into consideration, if there was any balance at the Treasury remaining unappropriated. If the House agreed to this motion, they would be opening the whole question of French compensation, and not merely Mr. D'Arcy Talbot, but the Baron de Bode, and all other disappointed claimants, would be let in by the terms of the motion now made, which embraced every possible case that had ever been submitted to the Commissioners, and the actual orders which had been made by the Treasury for the distribution of the fund would be delayed, and parties would be deprived of the result to which they were entitled to look forward. The facts of the case were well known to the House. The Commission which was first appointed closed its labours without exhausting the whole of the funds at its disposal. The Duke of Wellington considered the claims of the parties who professed to have an interest in their distribution, and having done so prepared a Treasury minute, which was now on the table of the House, pointing out the relative classes of claimants, and how they ought to come before the public as participators in the compensation fund; for it was to be observed, that many of these were paid in full, but were only declared entitled to partial payment. Application was made when the Duke of Wellington went out of office to the Government which succeeded, as was always the case, to reverse the decision of its predecessor. He was himself inclined to think, that one part of the Duke of Wellington's minute might have been otherwise; but Lord Spencer, who considered the case with very great attention, differed from him, and confirmed the Duke of Wellington's minute as being strictly in accordance with the justice of the case. Money, however, still remained to be distributed, and a new Commission was appointed by Lord Grey's Government for that purpose. Documents in proof of his claim were lodged by Mr. D'Arcy Talbot, and that he was entitled to go before the second Commission, and he was heard over and over again, and a decision was given against him. If they entertained individual cases, such as those of the Baron de Bode, or the Troutbeck case, or that of Mr. D'Arcy Talbot, they would expose themselves to all the hazard of a personal canvass and all the other inconveniences which were inseparable from such a step, like a Committee on a private Bill. On these grounds he trusted the House would agree with him in thinking that it was not proper to appoint this Committee. He might add as another ground for not complying with the motion, that the Treasury had been served that very day with notice of a bill being filed in Chancery with respect to these claims. If an appeal lay, let it be made to a court of law, but let the House not be seduced into undertaking functions which they could not properly perform.

Mr. Goulburn

said, that when the Treasury minute arranged this matter under the Duke of Wellington's Government in 1829, he had thought it all ended, and certainly nothing had since occurred to make it desirable that the matter should be reopened, as all the parties had a right to appeal from the adjudication. He doubted much whether, in point of form, the parties had the power to apply to Parliament on the subject, unless the consent of the Crown were given—for when they applied they did not appeal so much to the justice of Parliament as to the liberality of the Crown. Under all the circumstances, if the matter were pressed to a division, he must oppose the motion.

The House divided: — Ayes 39; Noes 49: Majority 10.

List of the AYES.
Attwood, T. Bulwer, H. L.
Bonham, R. F. Chapman, L.
Bridgman, H. Chichester, A.
Broadwood, H. Crawford, W. S.
Evans, G. Palmer, R.
Fector, J. M. Perceval, Colonel
Forbes, W. Perceval W. M.
Gore, O. Richards, J.
Goring, H. D. Shaw, right hon. F.
Goulburn, Sergeant Smith, B.
Hamilton, Lord C. Stuart, Lord D.
Hutt, W. Talbot, J. H.
Jackson, Sergeant Trevor, hon. A.
Lennox, Lord A. Vigors, N. A.
Longfield, R. Walker, C. A.
Lowther, J. H. Walter, J.
Mathew, G. B. Young, J.
O'Brien, W. S.
O'Connell, D. TELLERS.
O'Connell, M. Mackinnon, Mr.
O'Conor Don Lynch, A. H.
Palmer, General
List of the NOES.
Aglionby, H. A. Palmerston, Viscount
Alston, R. Parnell, Sir H.
Beckett, Sir J. Pattison, J.
Bewes,T. Peel, rt. hon. Sir R.
Brotherton, J. Pelham, J. C.
Brownrigg, S. Price, R.
Byng, G. Pryme, G.
Campbell, Sir J. Pusey, P.
Crompton, S. Rice, T. S.
Donkin, Sir R. Richards, R.
Dundas, hon. T. Rundle, J.
Fenton, J. Smith, R. V.
Gisborne, T. Stanley, E. J.
Goulburn, rt. hon. H. Stuart, R.
Hector, C. J. Strickland Sir G.
Hindley, C. Thompson, C. P.
Jones, T. Thornley, T.
Irton, S. Troubridge, E.
Labouchere, H. Vyvyan, Sir R.
Lemon, Sir C. Woulfe, Sergeant
Lister, E. C. Wrightson, W.
Mangles, J. Young, G. F.
Marsland, H.
Morgan, C. M. R. TELLERS.
Morpeth, Viscount Baring, F. T.
Neeld, J. Parker, J.