Commons Sitting of 1 July 1825

DECCAN PRIZE MONEY.
Colonel Lushingtonpresented a petition from certain officers of the Indian Army relative to the Deccan prize-money. The petitioners stated their satisfaction at the conduct of the trustees. The hon. member said, he thought the claims of the army, in many respects, so extravagant, as to operate to the prevention of any speedy settlement of the business. The army
1466
had set forth an unsubstantial demand of 2,000,000 l., and they had, moreover, claimed the value of all the towns and palaces which had been captured by the British forces, and which had afterwards been given up to the native princes.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerwas glad to hear the expressions of the petitioners, Never were men so severely treated as the trustees had been. They knew well what obloquy would attend the discharge of a duty so difficult. They were aware, that the most extravagant expectations were entertained, by both officers and men, as to the amount of the booty. Any other men would have shrunk from such a responsibility. The duke of Wellington had been advised to have nothing to do with it; but with a magnanimity not surprising in him, he considered that no man in the service could be better acquainted with the whole of the circumstances of the capture, than himself. From first to last, since he had taken the subject into his hands, he had been met by nothing but reproaches and calumnies, the most unfounded and undeserved.
Dr. Lushingtonpersisted in the assertion, that the behaviour of the duke of Wellington and Mr. Arbuthnot, as trustees of that booty, had been most unprecedented. The expectations of all the claimants could not have been so extravagant as had been represented. Many of those expectations had been founded upon sound principles. The claimants had a right to have their claims investigated fairly and openly, and not to be settled behind their backs, as the trustees had attempted. Amongst the claimants were to be found the commander-in-chief and his staff; and these persons, surely, could not be supposed to have acted irregularly in setting forth their claims. Every thing desired might have been easily obtained, if the trustees had condescended to hold communication with the agent or solicitor of the army.
Sir H. Hardingecomplained of the mis-statements and calumnies of an anonymous pamphlet published against the duke of Wellington. The fact was, that until 1823 the trustees had nothing to say to the distribution of the prize-money. Since then, sir T. Hislop had been required to give in a list of the claimants, which was not delivered till the 5th of June. So far the fault of the delay was attributable to sir T. Hislop. The fact was, that

1467
both the duke of Wellington and Mr. Arbuthnot had laboured indefatigably in the business on behalf of the army. He was sorry he was not in the House on a previous evening, when a learned civilian had said, that a certain written answer given by the duke of Wellington was impudent and insolent in the highest degree. To be sure it was easy for gentlemen in their places to give utterance to expressions with respect to others who were too elevated to notice them, which they would not venture to use to the members of that House. He did not wish to curtail the liberty of speech, but it was difficult for any friend of that noble person to listen to such language, without retorting his own words upon the member who ventured to use it. He denied on the part of Mr. Arbuthnot, that there ever was a design of appointing his son, who was a minor, in his place. The statement was false and calumnious. Mr. Arbuthnot's youngest son was 25 years of age. He had taken the opinion of the law-officers upon the right of appointing his son an agent, and he was informed that there would be nothing illegal in it. Such a system of clamour and calumny excited against men engaged in a business so arduous was highly to be deprecated. The soldiers had been taught to expect most unaccountable heaps of wealth, They actually looked to be paid, as it appeared by the abominable pamphlet, for the public buildings and palaces of Deccan. As well might the Waterloo army expect to be paid for the Tuilleries.
Mr. Humesaid, that the conduct of the duke and his colleague had been most extraordinary; for they had expressed to the solicitor of the claimants their determination to receive all the information which he might think proper to give, but to afford him no information whatever upon any point. He denied that the petitioners had advanced claim to the amount of 2,000,000 l. The petitioners stated the sum at only 700,000 l. Great and very culpable delay had existed somewhere, and if that delay were not attributable to the trustees, let them clear themselves, and fix the blame where it ought to lie, by affording the information required at their hands.
Sir H. Hardingesaid, that the duke of Wellington never had refused information. On the contrary, he had informed sir T. Hislop that the papers were at his service to inspect them at the office; but he would
1468
not let them be shown to attorneys and solicitors.
Mr. Spring Ricesaid, that the words attributed to the learned member, had never been used by him. It was, therefore, to be regretted that his gallant friend had not ascertained this fact, before he had entered upon the subject.
Sir H. Hardingesaid, that the words had been printed in the newspapers, and as the learned member had not denied them, and had not found fault with the reporter, he was responsible for them.
The Speakersaid, it was most disorderly for any member to refer to what had been uttered in a previous debate; but it was still more out of order to derive that information from a source, the existence of which was itself a breach of the privileges of the House.
Mr. Broughamsaid, he could not but condemn the conduct of any member who, from what he had seen in a newspaper, came down to that House and gave vent to his feelings, before he had asked his opponent whether he had really made use of the words attributed to him. He must tell the gallant gentleman, that neither the high station of the duke of Wellington, nor the interest the country held in him, could ever deter either himself or his friends from expressing their opinions frankly upon his public conduct. The duke of Wellington and Mr. Arbuthnot were public men, clothed with a public trust, and there was public money concerned in that trust; and as honest stewards to the public, he and every one in that House was bound to scrutinize the duke's conduct. He had been consulted professionally by the attorneys appointed by those who were interested in the booty. Mr. Arbuthnot's son might be of age now; but was he not a minor at the time of the appointment before alluded to? ["No, no."] Be that fact as it might, he had given his opinion to the claimants that the appointment of young Arbuthnot to be the agent would have been illegal, and that by the provisions of the Prize Act, a penalty of 500 l. would have been incurred by every single transaction of his in that appointment. And then, what followed? The gentlemen opposite talked of attack. There was an attack, indeed, made upon the legal advisers of sir T. Hislop—an attack which was so utterly gross that it could only be extenuated by the profound ignorance of the law evinced by the trustees. They offered. to show

1469
sir T. Hislop, and colonel Wood, the documents, on condition that they did not show them to any lawyer. And the ground of this prohibition was still more offensive—"because there was too great a disposition in certain quarters to entertain law proceedings." Now, the love of lawyers for litigation was a vulgar, gross, and every-day charge. It was as old as the hills. It was, however, utterly groundless. Four out of every five opinions given by lawyers were against the case submitted to them. He himself frequently told clients that though in principle they might have a very good case, they had not one which would repay the expense and trouble of a suit. But, now who were these lawyers did the House suppose? He admitted, that for himself and his learned friend near him (Dr. Lushington), nothing could be said: they were lawyers without redemption. But Dr. Jenner was joined with them in their opinion—a man as little of a whig as any gentleman opposite—a very worthy lawyer, with an excellent tory spirit. Next was Mr. W. Adams, a king's counsel—a man of no violent politics, scarcely of any politics at all, and a friend to the duke of Wellington. Then who else was there? Oh! what if a judge was among them? What if lord Wellington, as a cabinet minister, had since joined in recommending this person to the Crown as a fit associate among the twelve judges of the land. Mr. Gaselee, had joined them in their opinion. Then there was Mr. William Harrison, the known familiar of the Treasury—who, "most unkindest act of all" turned upon them. Really people who talked of unjustifiable attacks and so forth, ought to remember the old adage of the danger of persons who live in certain houses, throwing stones. For this very nobleman, who seemed to be so very touchy by representation, and who had been so touchily defended by the gallant officer, did not scruple to make this unjustifiable attack upon the respectable lawyers whom he had named. He would only add, that he had heard this pamphlet called a libel. If it was a libel, the courts of law were open to the parties; and this course proceeding, he begged to say, would be much better and more decent than talking in big words there.
Mr. Secretary Peelcould not help expressing his surprise at the course which this conversation had taken. For himself, he had heard no offensive expression
1470
made use of by his gallant friend. That gallant officer had certainly, with great warmth, repelled a charge which he conceived to have been made against a noble friend of his who was absent; but he would ask, whether such warmth was not frequently manifested in the course of discussions in that House. His gallant friend had no previous intimation that such a petition was to be presented, and therefore he was free from the suspicion of having premeditated any improper language. With respect to the noble duke, and the right hon. gentleman, whose conduct was found fault with, so far from being blamed, their exertions were entitled to the highest praise. If there were any two individuals upon whose integrity and straitforwardness he was most peculiarly inclined to rely, the duke of Wellington and Mr. Arbuthnot were the men. They had gratuitously undertaken a most complicated and laborious task, and it was but a poor return for their services, thus to turn round and accuse them of delay.
Mr. Secretary Canningsaid, he had been endeavouring to recollect the precise words used by the learned member. He thought the epithet "insolent," or the substantive "insolence," had been made use of by him, not, however, as applied to individual character, or meant privately, but directed against a letter in which the words "the said W. Harrison," instead of "the said Mr. W. Harrison," had been used. In explanation of which mistake it was enough to say, that the word "Mr." was inserted in the original manuscript, but by accident omitted in the copy. And while he agreed that it was no part of the duty of a member to stand up and deny a charge made upon such loose authority, he hoped the learned gentleman would not feel the same objection to stating whether he (Mr. C.) was right in his impression of what had been said on the occasion alluded to.
Dr. Lushingtonsaid, that after the appeal which had been made to him by the right hon. Secretary, he felt justified in stating, that which he would have never uttered,—which he would sooner have parted with life than have spoken a word upon, in answer to what he conceived a most wanton and unfounded attack upon him. The hon. member for Durham had commented on his conduct, being at the time cognizant of the error into which he had been led, as he held in his

1471
hand the letter which would have explained that error, and yet had he come down to the House to reprobate that conduct, though in possession of the document which would have explained the greater part of it. Had he not risen to utter one syllable in answer to the charge so made against him, he would have shown that he wanted the feelings of a man; and would have, in that House, become unworthy of a seat. He conceived he had done no more than his duty in the course he had taken on the occasion alluded to, and should a similar occasion present itself, no human power should prevent him from acting in a similar manner, even though the person to be spoken of were the highest subject in the country. He now came to answer the right hon. gentleman, and he assured him that, to the best of his knowledge, be (Mr. C.) had stated with great accuracy the words which he (Dr. L.) had used, and also the meaning with which he had used them. He was quite sure the word impudent or insolent could not, with a shadow of propriety, be applied to Mr. Harrison, who was the law adviser of the Treasury, and whose brother was a secretary to the same department. He had designated the letter as being insolent, or insulting, and he was perfectly correct so far as it appeared in print. He hoped the House would not call upon him to say more than that he had been misled, and had used strong expressions under a mistake.
Sir H. Hardingesaid, that if any expression used by him was offensive or unparliamentary, he was ready to explain in the fullest manner. He admitted that his manner was vehement; but he declared that he was not conscious of having used, or intended, any expression offensive to the learned gentleman.
The Speakersaid, he was anxious to bear testimony to the fact, that no offensive language had been used. Had any thing been said which called for his interference, it would have been unpardonable in him to have remained silent, A mistake had certainly taken place, and the learned member had done honour to himself, and justice to him (the Speaker), in giving the explanation which the House had just heard.
Dr. Lushingtonsaid, he certainly had been pained at having insolence imputed to him; but as the gallant officer had declared that he was unconscious of having used or intended any thing offensive, he was satisfied.
1472
The petition was ordered to he printed.

MILITARY OCCUPATION OF SPAIN.
Mr. Broughamsaid, he rose for the purpose of proposing a question to the right hon. Secretary upon a subject of the most serious nature—he meant the military occupation of Spain, by France. He had hitherto abstained from asking a single question, fearful that discussion would be productive of mischief, and of making worse the situations of those gallant characters who were now imprisoned martyrs in the cause of liberty, and who had lost in that glorious cause all bet their honour. But now, at the close of the session, he thought he might venture to propose one question. It had been long since stated, that when Ferdinand was fully restored to power, the French troops were to be withdrawn from Spain. That time had arrived, and still the French troops remained; nay more, they had fortified Cadiz; in addition to which, they held St. Sebastian and several other places. He underderstood that thirty or forty thousand French troops still remained in Spain. Were they to remain in Spain as long as the king of France, or as Ferdinand self wished for their presence? If such was the case, then it became the duty of England to interfere. In a short time Ferdinand might say that the French troops should remain in his territories, so long as Spain was at war with her South American colonies. The policy at present pursued by France had a tendency to destroy the balance of power in Europe. He would ask, what would be our situation, in the event of another war with Ireland, exposed to the iron coast of Spain, guarded, not by Spaniards, but by Frenchmen, continued in that country under various pretexts? He would, therefore, ask the right hon. Secretary, whether there was any reason to hope that the French troops would shortly evacuate the Spanish territory?
Mr. Secretary Canningsaid, that the point to which the learned member had alluded, had long occupied the attention of the government, and was still pressing upon that attention. He was prepared to say, that ministers had received from the French government, from time to time, such assurances as satisfied his mind that there did not exist the slightest shadow of an intention to occupy the fortresses of Spain, after the French army should have been withdrawn. He was able to

1473
assert most distinctly that not one sous of French money bad been expended upon those fortifications. It might be satisfactory to state further, that, in December, a distinct application bad been made to the French government for a disclosure of its views with regard to Spain. The answer was, that it was intended to reduce the army of occupation to 22,000 men, continuing an extra corps on foot in the country until the month of. April. He had every reason to believe that an extra corps had either been actually withdrawn, or was in a course of being withdrawn. With regard to the period when it might be expected that the remaining 22,000 men would be removed from the Spanish territory, he doubted if even the French government could yet give a satisfactory answer to the question. He firmly believed, that the learned gentleman could not be more anxious for the evacuation of Spain by the French army than the French government were for that event. Individually, he could honestly and conscientiously declare, that he was under no degree of doubt or apprehension on the subject.

SOUTH AMERICA—FOREIGN ENLISTMENT BILL.
Mr. Baringsaid, he rose for the purpose of asking a question relating to a matter of considerable importance. A treaty between this country and one of the newly recognized states of South America had been laid on the table. But, it was a remarkable fact, that a most honourable person, an individual of the most deserving description, who had been regularly accredited from one of these states, had not been presented to his majesty. It was rumoured, that this circumstance arose from the interference of certain foreign powers, who were anxious that the recognition of the South American states should be of a mitigated description. Now, he wished to know from the right hon. gentleman whether this omission was merely accidental, or whether it was, as rumour had stated, intentional. A treaty had been laid on the table; but, the minister of the country to which it related had not been received at court. He made this application without the slightest interference of the person to whom it related. While he was on his legs, he wished to ask another question, which was of considerable interest as it affected the feelings of a most gallant and, meritorious class of people—he meant
1474
those English officers who had entered into the military service of foreign states. The House must be aware, that a regulation, founded on an act of parliament which passed a few years ago, still existed, which placed those individuals in a most extraordinary situation. Many of those officers, at the termination of the war, finding their "occupation gone," and being actuated by a strong love for a military life, as well as by a powerful feeling in favour of those sentiments of liberty which they had imbibed in their native country, had embraced an honourable service amongst the troops of those countries that were struggling for freedom, and were, in consequence, by the provisions of the bill to which he had alluded, subject to very considerable injury and inconvenience. In making this observation, he did not mean to call in question the policy of the bill to which he bad referred, because, at the time when it passed, great jealousy existed with respect to the conduct of this country as to the establishment of those new states. Reproaches were cast upon this country, by Spain and France, in consequence of the part which a liberal policy induced it to pursue. It had been strongly urged that the battle of independence, which was at that period fighting, and which had ultimately proved successful, had, in a great measure been carried on by this country. This, certainly, was made a matter of complaint; and though, abstractedly, he did not think that the law then enacted was strictly justifiable, still, looking to all the circumstances, and considering the time, he would not quarrel with the policy in which it originated. The bill, it should be observed, was not to enable the Crown to recal officers from foreign service, but it gave to every paltry informer the right to call before a justice of the peace, any officer who had taken a commission under a foreign state. If the power existed, as he believed it did, in the Crown, to use its discretion in the recal or disqualification of officers, why should this additional. power be suffered to exist? The law to which he referred imposed a degradation—imposed a very severe punishment—on persons who might contravene its provisions; and yet, there was not a gentleman who heard him, who must not view with the highest respect the conduct of those individuals, and who must not esteem them, on account of the noble motives by which they were actuated

1475
[hear]. It was quite clear, that the bill had been introduced, not from any personal motives, but on principles of public policy. The state of things which had given rise to it having, however, passed away—England having recognized the independence of several of those states—it was, he conceived, proper, that the law should be altered [hear]. Subjects of this country had, in periods of peace, held high commands in the French service. We had supplied admirals to Russia, and officers of various descriptions to Austria, Spain, and Portugal. In his opinion, it was of great importance to the military power of this country, that English officers should, in times of peace, be enabled to keep up their military knowledge, by entering into the service of foreign states. He knew that, at the present moment, France was pursuing this system. That country was pushing her military officers into every possible kind of service. They were employed in Greece, in Turkey, in every situation where their abilities were likely to be matured. The French pursued this course, on, as he conceived, the wisest and best of all policy. He had submitted these few observations, merely for the consideration of his majesty's government, and he trusted they would remedy the evil to which he had called their attention. If they did not, he would in the next session (and he did not mention the matter in the way of threat) make a motion on the subject.
Mr. Secretary Peelsaid, he was extremely sorry that the hon. gentleman had put his questions during the absence of his right hon. friend (Mr. Canning). He could not state the circumstances which had prevented Mr. Lempriere from being presented to his majesty, but he could assure the hon. gentleman that the course hitherto pursued by his majesty's government was not, and would not be, in the slightest respect, altered by the interference of other powers. With respect to the other point, he thought it was perfectly fair that his majesty should have the power of preventing the enlistment of British officers in the service of foreign states, and he did not think that the right to punish them which was given by the act referred to, was at all improper. It was quite clear, that they had not suffered much under the law; for, he believed, not a single instance had occurred in which the power of laying an information had been acted on.

PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE.
Mr. Baringwished to put another question to the right hon. gentleman, touching a subject which he had mentioned in the earlier part of the session. A suggestion had been made by him, and in that he was glad to find a concurrence in the feelings of gentlemen on every side of the House, that the services of a right hon. gentleman at the head of a certain department, to whose labours the country had been so much indebted; he meant the president of the Board of Trade (Mr. Huskisson), had not been sufficiently rewarded by the public [hear, hear]. The accidental absence of that right hon. gentleman afforded him an opportunity of recurring to the subject, which delicacy to him would have forbidden in his presence; but now that he had the opportunity, he would take upon himself to say, that there was a general feeling of regret, that that individual should be slaving as he was, in the service of the public, without any adequate reward. This he stated sincerely as his opinion, and without any concert or communication with the right hon. gentleman in question. What he wished to know of the right hon. Secretary was, whether government had turned its attention to the subject?
Mr. Secretary Peelreplied, that he had not heard the subject formally mentioned, but the justness of the hon. member's observations was so apparent, and the hardship of expecting a man to discharge the arduous duties of a laborious office, without adequate and direct compensation, was so manifest, that he had no hesitation in saying it was a subject worthy of consideration. The remuneration of the president of the Board of Trade, whose duties were many and arduous, ought not to be given indirectly. He thought there could be no objection in placing that office, in performing the duties of which the individual sacrificed almost the whole of his time, on a different footing. Instead of that, however, his right hon, friend was placed in another office (treasurer of the navy) to which a salary was attached. His right hon. friend stood in this situation: he filled two offices, in one of which he had little to do, but was paid for it; while in the other he was entirely occupied, but without any remuneration at all. There was no doubt but that the mode of requiting such services, should be amended.