Commons Sitting of 19 March 1817

SCOTCH MADHOUSES BILL.
Lord Binningrose for the purpose of obtaining leave to bring in a bill to provide for the establishment of Lunatic Asylums in Scotland. It was proposed to extend the advantages of the bill introduced by his right hon. friend (Mr. Rose) to that part of the country; and it would be recollected, that that measure was founded upon the report of a committee detailing instances of in humanity and suffering, on which it must always be painful, and was now unnecessary to dwell. With a view of extending the advantages of the inquiry to that part of the island to which he belonged, a set of

1193
queries, had been transmitted to the she-rifts of the Scotch counties; and the information received from them, although it exhibited no examples of the same brutal treatment of patients visited by this severe affliction, abounded in proofs of the negligent and grossly ignorant management that prevailed amongst that description of persons who speculated in this branch of human misery. There were, however, several distinguished exceptions to the truth of this observation; he referred, in particular, not only to the splendid institution at Glasgow, but to the comparatively humbler one at Aberdeen, and to several others of still less note. The same necessity, however, existed for a similar measure to that adopted by the bill of his right hon. friend. This he thought must appear evident from the report of the sheriff of Mid Lothian, which stated, that there were 25 private mad-houses in that county, in all of which there were not more than 94 individuals confined. In one of them there was but one patient, in some five, and in one only, so many as 25. It was obvious, that on such a system the treatment of the patients could not be the most beneficial or scientific. His bill, although precisely similar in principle, differed in point of arrangement, but would not interfere with that of his right hon. friend. Before his right hon. friend's bill, England had county asylums, but in Scotland these would not be necessary; and he should recommend, that the county be divided into six districts, in each of which an asylum should be established, to which lunatics should be conveyed, under the direction of the magistrates. He proposed to leave this division to be carried into effect by general commissioners, who should be allowed to associate district commissioners to themselves. The subject of expense, he was aware, was a tender one at this moment; but he did not think it would bear very heavily on the counties, when it was considered that many of these unhappy persons were paupers, and already supported by charity. The number of lunatics now confined was 1,550, and those at large were estimated at 2,000, including idiots. Those who were chargeable as paupers must be maintained at an easier expense when collected. The noble lord concluded by moving, "That leave be given to bring in a bill to provide proper places for the care and treatment of fatuous and furious persons in Scotland."
The motion was agreed to. †

WINDOW TAX BILL.
General Gascoynewished to know when the new bill relative to the Asssessment of Warehouses was to be brought in, and observed, that from the reports which had gone abroad with respect to the nature of this bill, much anxiety was felt on the subject.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerhoped, that the bill alluded to would be presented to the House in a day or two. As soon as it was before the House, he should move that it be printed, as that would be the most sure mode of conveying accurate information as to the nature of the bill. It having been in several cases decided by the judges, that buildings originally erected to serve as dwelling houses, were liable to assessment as such, although afterwards converted into warehouses, the object of the bill in question was, to declare explicitly that no building should be liable to assessment which would not have been liable, if originally built for the purpose for which it was then used. It was therefore obvious that the object of the bill was by no means to lay on any new tax, but rather the reverse.
In the course of the evening,
Mr. Lushingtonmoved, "That leave be given to bring in a bill to explain and amend an act made in the 48th of his present majesty, for repealing the duties of assessed taxes, and granting new duties in lieu thereof, and to exempt such dwelling houses as may be employed for the sole purpose of trade, or of lodging goods, wares, or merchandise, from the duties charged by the said act." He repeated the explanation given by the chancellor of the exchequer, that the object of the bill would be to exempt from the operation of the tax those places that it was out of doors conceived would be affected by it, and not to impose any new tax whatever. Its object was, to exempt such offices or dwelling-houses connected with warehouses, for the sole purpose of trade.
Leave was given to bring in the bill.

SPANISH AMERICA.
Mr. Broughamrose to move for the production of certain papers connected with a treaty between Portugal and Spain. As he was in the dark as to the nature of the facts, he might have occasion to request some information from the other side of the House to guide his motion. All that he at present knew was, that about seven or eight months ago an expedition, partly

1195
by land and partly by sea, was fitted out at Rio Janeiro, which, when fully equipped proceeded towards the Spanish settlement of Monte-Video, in the neighbourhood of which the naval and military part of the expedition united, and proceeded to hostile movements against that settlement. These movements ended in the Portuguese force taking up a strong position in the neighbourhood of Monte-Video, and by the latest accounts from that quarter it appeared—not, indeed, that this force had taken possession of that fortress, for in that he hoped they would not succeed, but that Monte Video was in a state of siege or blockade. The purpose for which that armament had been fitted out was, no doubt, to take possession of that settlement; and, if this was true, one or two considerations must arise. Viewing Monte-Video as a Spanish settlement, how happened it that hostilities were going on between these powers in that quarter alone? But viewing it as a settlement not in the possession of Spain, but one to which the government of that kingdom laid claim, if it was considered as one of those which the noble lord, in an official document, had, in his opinion, very improperly called the revolted colonies, but which ought more correctly to be called the independent part of South America, that part of it which was engaged in a struggle for its success, in which almost every one in Europe put up prayers; in this view he was equally at a loss to account for the proceedings to which he alluded, for it was strange that an expedition should be fitted out against it without the concurrence of the Spanish government. If, on the other hand, there was any treaty by which that settlement was ceded, was it not extraordinary, in the first place, that the House had not heard any thing of such a treaty; and, in the second place, was it not evident, that such a treaty must have been executed with the connivance of our agents there. Marshal Beresford, one of the most distinguished ornaments of the military profession, was, as it appeared, also commander in chief of the whole Portuguese forces at the very time when this expedition was fitted. If, therefore, lord Beresford knew of any such treaty, it was very strange that the House should now be without information on the subject. The House had some right to know, even if a convention had been made to cede that settlement, whether there was any equivalent to
1196
Spain. It was said that the equivalent was the abstinence on the part of Portugal to claim the restoration of Olivenza, which it had been settled at the congress should be restored. It had been surmised that Olivenza was to remain to Spain, while Portugal was to have Monte Video in lieu of it. If this country was a party to the treaty of Vienna, by which the restoration of Olivenza was stipulated, and if another treaty was made elsewhere relating to that place, it was a necessary consequence, that whatever was done in contravention to the treaty to which we were parties, should be stated. The principal reason why he brought forward this motion was, to give our government an opportunity of explaining the conduct of our agents (civil or military), in this transaction; and he was sure that nothing would be more satisfactory to the House and to the country, than to find that the proceeding in question, on the part of Portugal, was in no way sanctioned by the British government. He should therefore move, "That an humble Address be presented to the Prince Regent, praying that there be laid before the House, copies of any treaties or conventions relative to the cession of Monte-Video to Portugal; and. of any correspondence respecting the same so far as such correspondence can be communicated without injury to the public service."
Lord Castlereaghsaid, he did not think that the hon. and learned gentleman meant to press his motion, for if it should be agreed to, the return to it must be in the negative, because he (lord C.) was not in possession of any such treaty. He had no difficulty in stating that the British government was no party, direct or indirect to the course of policy pursued by Spain towards her colonies. The conduct which this country followed with reference to these disputes was, that of adhering to a system of strict neutrality, and not that which the hon. and learned gentleman seemed to recommend—to assist the colonies against the native country, which would be in direct contravention to the treaties between Great Britain and Spain. While marshal Beresford was employed in the service of another power, so long as he was not recalled from that service by this country, the capacity in which he acted as in the service of that power must not be confused with his character of a British subject. His conduct must be considered as directed by the Portuguese govern-

1197
merit, in whose service he was now acting. There were many other Britith officers in the service of Portugal, whose situation was analogous to that of marshal Beresford. The Crown undoubtedly might, when it pleased, recall all those of its subjects in any foreign service. But as marshal Beresford was now situated, it would be supposing him guilty of an absolute breach of trust to assume that he communicated to this country the councils of the government in whose service he was employed. He must also deny that it was competent for government to lay before parliament any treaty between other powers of which it might have a knowledge. Yet he might state, generally, that there was nothing which could indicate the existence of such a treaty as that which the hon. and learned gentleman alluded to. The House must be aware that the events in the river Plate, as they might involve interests of the most important nature, affecting the European dominions of Portugal, must be considered not as a mere South American question, but as an European question. He therefore did not think that he was at liberty to enter into any further statement of the facts, even if they were in his possession. He had disclosed the main fact, that Great Britain was no party in any shape to the intentions or acts of the crown of Portugal in the transaction in question. He would repeat, that he had no reason to suppose that there was any such treaty in existence as that alluded to by the hon. and learned gentleman.
Mr. Broughamsaid, there was one thing more as to which he begged some information from the noble lord. It was said, that nothing was done by the British government to give room for the supposition that it espoused the one cause more than the other; that the system acted on was one of perfect neutrality; that marshal Beresford's acts were merely those of an officer in the service of Portugal, and did not in any way commit the British government; that not only marshal Beresford, but many other British officers in the Portuguese service were in the same situation. So far it was all very well. But if any number of our officers or men should engage on the side of the colonies, was it to be understood that no umbrage would be taken, but that the scales of neutrality would be equally and scrupulously poised between the two powers? He would ask, whether it had-not been prohibited by the
1198
British government to afford any assistance to the insurgents, by furnishing them with arms? He would ask, whether the transportation of arms from Trinidad to the Spanish main had not been prohibited under pain of confiscation, fine and imprisonment?
Lord Castlereaghsaid, the hon. and learned gentleman seemed to argue the question as if British officers were now serving against the colonies. This was not the fact. He did not believe that there was a single British officer in the Portuguese army who was not now in Portugal, with the exception of marshal Beresford. As to the other case put by, the hon. and learned gentleman, he felt that we were acting a part strictly neutral. At the same time, it was to be considered that, on the one side, there were ties of alliance with our government; while, on the other side, there were none; therefore he could not allow the hon. and learned gentleman to carry his parallel so far as to pass over such a consideration. As to Trinidad, certainly, if steps were taken to supply one of the parties carrying on hostilities with arms, to be used expressly for the annoyance of the other party, that would be a breach of neutrality. He could not be expected to say any thing that would look like countenancing British officers to serve on the side of the insurgents, when there were none such serving against them.
Mr. Broughamsaid, that as to marshal Beresford, it might be true, that he was not serving against the insurgents; but was it true that that officer had been engaged in superintending the embarkation and organization of the force which proceeded against Monte Video?
Mr. Lambsaid, that there seemed to be a strange anomaly in the situation of lord Beresford. It was true, that he was an officer in the service of the king of Portugal, but at the same time he was still a British officer; and would not those proceedings in which he acted be considered as sanctioned by the British government?
Lord Castlereaghsaid, the principle was perfectly recognized by all the European powers, that the subject of one Crown might be employed in the service of another, so long as he was not recalled. The motion was then withdrawn.
Mr. Ponsonbyvote to put a question to the noble lord, which was not irrelevant to the subject that had been just disposed of. A bill was, he understood, lately in-

1199
troduced in the legislative assembly of the United States, giving a new power to the president, for the purpose of the enforcement of strict neutrality. The title of this bill was "a bill to prevent citizens of the United States from selling vessels of war to the citizens or subjects of any foreign power, and more effectually to prevent the arming and equipping vessels of war in the ports of the United States, intended to be used against nations in amity with the United States." The intention of this bill was evidently to prevent any speculation, either in money or arms, which had for its object the assistance of the independents, as they were called, in South America. It was said that this measure arose from the interposition of the Spanish ambassador in North America, who had presented remonstrances to the president of the United States, which remonstrances were backed and strongly urged by the English minister on the spot. The object of his question was, to know whether there was any foundation for the rumour that the British minister had so acted, and if he had, whether his majesty's ministers conceived that this was acting the part of strict neutrality?
Lord Castlereaghhad no difficulty in stating, that the prohibition alluded to, on the part of the United States, was taken solely on the view of that power as to its own policy, and not in consequence of any suggestion or interference from any other quarter.
Mr. Ponsonbysaid, he was glad to receive such an answer from the noble lord. He then begged leave to advert to a treaty signed at Madrid on the 5th of July 1814, by the British minister, on the part of his Britannic majesty, and Ferdinand 7th of Spain. In this treaty he found one article (the fourth) with the following stipulation:— "In the event of the commeree of the Spanish American possessions being open to foreign nations, his Catholic majesty promises that Great Britain shall be admitted to trade with those possessions as the most favoured nation." * That is, that she shall have a fair participation in any advantage which may arise to her as a commercial country, from the South American trade being so thrown open. To this treaty there had been affixed three additional articles. To the third of these, he begged to call the particular attention of the noble lord op-
* See Vol. 30 p. 227.
1200
posite. The noble lord had said that our reflations with the affairs of Spain and her colonies were those of strict neutrality. Of this strictness he (Mr. P.) did not complain, for he was by no means inclined to say that it would be fit for this country to manifest an officious interference in the contest between Old and New Spam. That neutrality ought to be strict, and if any encouragement were given that England would take a part with her ally, or in any way interfere so as to make herself a party to the struggle, he would freely state that his majesty's ministers, in advising such a measure, would depart from the best interests of their country. The third article to which he called the noble lord's attention, was as follows: "His Britannic majesty, being anxious that the troubles and disturbances which unfortunately prevail in the dominions of his Catholic majesty in America should entirely cease, and the subjects of those provinces should return to their obedience to their lawful sovereign, engages to take the most effectual measures for preventing his subjects from furnishing arms, ammunition, or any other warlike article to the revolted in America." Now, what did this stipulation mean? If it meant to say, that the king of Great Britain was sincerely anxious that the subjects of Old Spain should return to their allegiance with their "lawful sovereign," it could be at once nothing less than a direct invitation to the king of Spain to prosecute his views against the spirit that had broken out in his South American dominions, and almost as direct a one as could be given by a regular identity of action between the two governments. This treaty was signed by sir H. Wellesley, and it was so much at variance with the policy which this country ought to pursue, that he would give notice of his intention to move for copies of the instructions sent out to sir H. Wellesley, by his majesty's government, on the authority of which he had signed this treaty.
Lord Castlereaghthought it extraordinary that this treaty should have so long escaped the attention of the right hon. gentleman. It had lain on the table nearly two years, and yet until this moment no objection was made to its provisions. The strict meaning of neutrality was, that we should not interfere by force or direct influence in the quarrel between the parties; but he never heard that the principle of our mediation, in the face of Europe,

1201
could receive the construction which the right hon. gentleman seemed to intimate. This country was certainly interested in mutual arrangements between Old and New Spain, on liberal terms. It was avowed on the part of this country, that our wish was, to see Spain and her colonies reunited; that they could cherish no hope in the way of arms from us; but that we were ready, if in our power, to contribute to the restoration of that connexion between them which had so long subsisted, provided it could be done with honour to ourselves and advantage to them both. When the motion was gone into, he would be prepared to meet it, though he could not help repeating, that the course taken was rather extraordinary, after the treaty had been signed three years, and had lain on their table nearly two.
Mr. Ponsonbyadmitted, that the treaty had been laid on the table on the 16th of March, 1815. It was equally the fact, that he had not, until within the last few days, heard of such a treaty. It was then laid upon the table, among a number of other papers, and no step taken upon it, either in the shape of an address of thanks to the Prince Regent for presenting it, or a motion in approbation of its provisions. Under these circumstances he was not surprised that it had been overlooked.
Mr. Broughamsaid, that in the second additional article of the treaty alluded to, there was the following declaration:— "His Catholic majesty, concurring in the fullest means in the sentiments of his Britannic majesty with respect to the injustice and inhumanity of the traffic in slaves, will take into consideration with the deliberation which the state of his possessions in America demands, the means of acting in uniformity with those sentiments." Now this deliberation on the part of his Catholic majesty had lasted more than two years, and the result of it seemed to be, that the trade in slaves was rather encouraged than restricted. In one year since this treaty was signed 20,000 slaves had been imported into the island of Cuba, and 40,000 into the territories of our faithful ally the king of Portugal. He requested to know whether any correspondence had taken place on the subject of the fulfilment of the second additional article of this treaty?
Lord Castlereaghdid not feel himself bound to answer the question; as a fitter opportunity would shortly arrive.
The subject here dropped.