Commons Sitting of 6 August 1833

MINUTES.
Papers ordered. On the Motion of Mr. T. GLADSTONE, a Copy of the Charter Incorporating the Borough of Portarlington, &c.
Bills. Read a third time:—.Notaries Public; Assessed Taxes Reduction; Thellusson's Estate; Sugar Refining.—Read a second time:—Sentence on Murderers (Ireland).—Read a first time:—Customs Acts Amendment; Chancery Offices; Land Revenue (Scotland).
Petitions presented. By Lord LOWTHER, from certain Proprietors of Tenantry Estate in Westmoreland, for Relief.—By Lord MOLYNEUX, from Eccles, and Burton-upon-Irwell, against the Rating of Tenements Bill—By Mr. Alderman WOOD, Mr. GISBORNE, and Mr. HUME, from Individuals Resident in and near the City of London, against certain Sections in the Bank Charter Bill.

GRAND JURIES (IREAND).
On the Motion of Lord Duncannon, the House again resolved itself into a Committee on the Grand Juries' (Ireland) Bill.
Lord Duncannonsaid, he had some Amendment to propose in the 30th clause which was under discussion on the last day this Committee sat. He thought it was highly desirable that Grand Juries should be called over, and their attendance enforced, in order that not a less number of Grand Jurors should be in attendance than was necessary by law for finding a bill of indictment. By the clause as it now stood, each Grand Jury were to be called over morning and evening; he proposed instead, that they be called over every morning, and at such other periods of the day as the foreman should deem requisite, provided that at those periods there was a less number present than were required by law to pass a bill, which he understood to be thirteen. Another Amendment suggested by the hon. and learned member for the University of Dublin, to which he (Lord Duncannon) was disposed to accede was, that the penalty on a Grand Juror for non-attendance should be forty shillings instead of five pounds.
Mr. Shawsaid, he had never objected to the amount of the penalty, but to that part of the clause which made it imperative on the foreman to inflict the penalty. That power should be vested in the Judges of Assize, and not in the foreman.
Lord Duncannonsaid, the Grand Jury sat not only while the Judges were sitting, but when they were absent. It was absolutely necessary to compel the foreman to inflict the fine, otherwise he would not do

361
it. The noble Lord also said, that at the end of the clause he intended to introduce a proviso, to the effect that nothing contained in it should affect the authority of any Judge to enforce the attendance of any Grand Juror.
Mr. Shawwas opposed to that part which compelled the foreman to inflict a penalty on any Juror who was absent; it ought to leave in the foreman a discretion to fine according to the circumstances of the case.
Mr. O'Connellbore testimony to the fact, that at least half a dozen times during each Assize the Judge was applied to, and as soon as the absent Jurors were fined, an immediate attendance took place; and it followed, almost as a matter of course, that his Lordship was applied to for a remission of the fines. It was of more consequence that the power should be vested in the foreman of the Jury, during the absence of the Judge—for instance, before the arrival of the Judge at the assize town.
Mr. Shawagreed with the hon. and learned Member, that the same power should be vested in the hands of some competent authority—say, the foreman of the Jury—but not a greater power than would be possessed by the Judge.
The Committee divided on the clause—Ayes 37: Noes 6;—Majority 31.
Clauses to 56 agreed to. The House resumed; the Committee to sit again.

BOROUGH OF STAFFORD.
Sir Thomas Freemantle, as Chairman of the Committee on the Stafford Bribery Election, reported the Resolutions which they had agreed to—as follows, "That it appears to the Committee, that the evidence taken before them establishes a case of such open, general, and systematic bribery and corruption, that it is expedient that the borough of Stafford should cease to return Members to Parliament."—" That the Chairman be requested to move for leave to bring in a bill to disfranchise the borough of Stafford." He had ever considered it his duty, and the duty of that House, to make an example of any place in which gross and notorious bribery had been committed. If the present flagrant instance of depravity were passed over without punishment, a baneful precedent would be set to other boroughs to continue the same corrupt practices. He admitted that there was a difficulty attending such cases, but that ought not to deter them from doing their duty, and from proving to candidates, and to the more respectable portion of the Burgesses, that they
362
were bound to prevent the distribution of bribes. The hon. Member proceeded to analyse the evidence, and showed that the sum of 2l. 10 s. was paid for a split vole, and the sum of 5l. for a plumper. There was also evidence to show that the electors objected to these sums, as being below the regular town prices. They wanted an advance in the price, and attempts were made to procure it. These were not, however, successful, for one of the sitting Members would not pay more than these sums, and the price of votes was therefore only raised as between the two remaining candidates, for the contest lay between them, and the gentleman who refused to make the advance was known to be the favourite candidate. The management of business of this kind was pretty well understood at Stafford, so that the candidates were not directly implicated by the mode in which the money was advanced. Whenever money was wanting, some friend of the candidate said, "Oh! don't go troubling the candidate about money; I have plenty of money, and I'll let you have some." One of these friends, on one occasion, went into a banker's, and drew out in his own name 500 l., and went into the open market-place and there publicly gave it away for distribution: and who" the transactions afterwards became matter of inquiry, and it was asked why the thing had been done thus publicly; the answer was, that it was done so on purpose, for if it was known that their money was exhausted, they might as well retire from the contest at once. It had been proved, that at least 852 persons had received bribes for their votes, and there was such evidence as to others, that no one could doubt that many more than that number had received them. He night state generally, that of the old burgage voters of freemen, six-sevenths, of the new 10 l. householders, of the superior class, two thirds, and of the inferior class, one half—had received bribes. In every class, the participation in this corruption was pretty extensive. There was another circumstance which he ought to mention, to show the character of these elections at Stafford. It was this: at the close of the election, one of the poll-books was lost by one of the clerks, as he was coming out of a voting booth. It was supposed, that this book had been picked up by some person, and kept back under the idea that till it could be found no return could be made, and all the system of bribery would have to go over again. For all these evils there was

363
but one remedy. The evidence gave proof of the existence of universal iniquity in the borough, and the only remedy was to make a striking example of the borough. Was there a man prepared to say, that this borough should be screened, notwithstanding the case of gross bribery and corruption had been made out against it. The electors had grossly betrayed the important trust reposed in them, and they ought to suffer for it. He thought, the only just punishment for corruption so widely spread as this had been proved to be, was the total disfranchisement of the borough. They might probably be told that this was an ancient borough—it was so; and he might add, that the more they had heard of it the worse they were inclined to think of it. In his opinion, when the crime was great and signal, the punishment should be great and signal also. He had a great objection to the partial disfranchisement of a borough, and to taking voters from a neighbouring agricultural district to make up a larger constituency. The effect of such a course was, to diminish the number of county voters, which, in Staffordshire, was not too large at present, in consequence of the division of the county. Besides this, the attempt to purify a borough by partial disfranchisement had not succeeded in the places where it had already been tried; nor did he think it would, in this case, if the voters from Stone and Eggleston were called in to add to the constituency of the borough of Stafford; for there was something epidemic in the very air of Stafford, that would but spread the disease wider in proportion to the number ready to receive it. An instance of the want of success of this scheme of partial disfranchisement was to be found in the too notorious borough of Penryn, which had been united to Falmouth to give it a larger constituency; but the voters of Penryn could not, by this Union, he induced to abjure their evil practices, and at the last election, bribery was committed in that ancient borough. Besides this, there was an additional reason why there should not be a partial disfranchisement, or a mere extension of the suffrage; and that was, that in all such cases there should be an uncorrupted nucleus around which the larger constituency should form itself. There was no such thing in Stafford. He did not mean to say, that there were not two, or ten, or twenty, honourable men in the town; but their number was so small that it would not justify the House in making
364
them the nucleus of an extended constituency. There were only 200 persons who had not been proved to have taken bribes in money; but the greater part of these had mixed themselves up with the election, and with the corrupt practices that had disgraced it. Some of those who were in a respectable station in life had received money bribes, though in some instances there was an affectation of delicacy about taking them. There was the case of a man who went in his pony-chaise to the house where the money was paid to receive his money; but when he got there, he did not like to go in himself, so he sent his wife to take it. Another curious case, showing, that those who could not be proved to have received money for their own benefit, had yet been personally mixed up with the corrupt practices of the election, was that of a parish clerk, who carried on some trade in which he employed several men, who at first refused to go and vote, when he held up a 10 l. note to show them; they were not satisfied with merely being shown the note, and he then made himself liable to pay them, and kept the note for his own indemnity. The evidence throughout went to show, that the bribery at the last election was not less than on preceding occasions. Now, the bribery at the borough of Stafford had long been notorious. One Gentleman, now a Member of the House, though not at present sitting for Stafford, had taken the town by storm—by force of his money—for, on his entrance into the place, he was preceded by a band having bank-notes stuck in the front of their hats. Though there was not before this Committee any direct proof of bribery at former elections, yet he believed there was no man in that House who doubted that such was the case. Having stated those facts, he must take the liberty of observing, that he did not know by what chicanery the burgesses who had presented a petition against the election and return had been induced to withdraw their petition; but from whatever cause that course had been adopted, it would not answer the end for which it was intended. He regretted, however, that the usual course had not been followed in this case. The Committee proposed that a bill should be passed to disfranchise the borough; and he was of opinion, that that franchise should not be conferred on any other place. An election at Stafford was a nuisance, and he should recommend that that nuisance be for ever abated. He did not entertain any hopes of

365
being able to get a bill for that purpose passed into a law at so late a period of the Session, but he thought the House were bound to take some decisive step to mark tie course they intended to pursue. He, therefore, moved for leave to bring in a bill to disfranchise the borough of Stafford.
Mr. Macleodas a Member of the Committee, seconded the Motion, and expressed his complete conviction, that a case had been made out in evidence fully justifying this measure.
Mr. Chetwyndhoped, that the House would agree with him, that before leave was given to bring in this Bill, it was necessary that a case should be made out, not only of the strongest nature, but founded on facts and evidence of a most distinct kind, and which were incapable of contradiction. Now he must assert, that the hon. member for Buckingham (Sir T. Freemantle), had established no such case as that in the present instance. The House ought to look narrowly into the statements made before the Committee. Some of them had been made willingly, some upon compulsion, some under strong feelings of jealousy, and some from equally strong feelings of disappointment. His friends had been compelled to adopt measures which they knew to be improper and unconstitutional by the proceedings of the opposite party. As to the list of which the hon. Baronet had spoken, he should be able to prove, if an opportunity were afforded, that the names of many persons were inserted who had never received a farthing during the last election. It had been said, that no man could stand for Stafford who was not prepared to bribe. Now Major Hawkes had stood, and he had over and over again declared that he never would give sixpence. [Sir T. Freemantle: He lost his election. Yes, but he was at the head of the first day's poll, and would have been at the head of the second, had he not retired in consequence of family circumstances. No friend of his (Mr. Chetwynd's), however zealous in the cause, had entered into any contract with an elector until after the elector had polled. He denied that the majority of the ten-pound householders in Stafford, had been bribed—at least 300 voters were unimpeached and unimpeachable; and the House ought to pause before it proceeded to disfranchise, in the absence of all proof of guilt. The loss of the poll-book was in a main degree attributable to the Mayor. Former elections had been mentioned, and it had been asserted, that at one of them,
366
the voters carried bank notes in their hats as proofs that they had been bribed; but he had been informed that the voters had only, at night, put slips of paper into their hats, pretending that they were bank notes. The borough of Stafford was very ancient; its charter was dated prior to the reign of King John, and that Charter constituting it a free borough, had been confirmed by Edward 3rd. Under it the town had risen to great importance, carrying on extensive manufactures, especially of shoes. It contained 531 houses of the annual value of 10 l. and upwards, and it had enjoyed the privilege of sending Members to Parliament for the last six centuries. With regard to the proposed Bill, he thought that the existing and admitted evil might be completely remedied by a much more lenient measure than disfranchisement, which confounded the innocent with the guilty. So fully were the voters aware of the offence some of them had committed, that were a new election to take place to-morrow, it would be conducted with a degree of purity which would afford an example to many other parts of the kingdom. Instead of a Bill to disfranchise Stafford, he moved as an Amendment, that a Bill be brought in for preventing bribery and corruption in the election of Members to serve in parliament for the borough of Stafford.
Mr. Edward Bullerseconded the Amendment. He admitted, that the borough was not immaculate, but the remedy proposed by the hon. Baronet went beyond the disease. The object was, to prevent the recurrence of such offences, and he should be glad if every man who had taken a bribe, could not only be disfranchised as respected Stafford, but every other part of the kingdom, and marked for life as unlit to enjoy the privilege of a vote. It was not just, however, to punish the innocent with the guilty, and for that reason he objected to the total disfranchisement.
Sir Oswald Mosleywas averse from hasty legislation in a case like the present. No doubt great corruption bad prevailed in the borough of Stafford; but the House ought to beware bow it set a precedent as to the mode in which such places were to be treated. If hon. Members were prepared to pledge themselves that they would deal out the same measure of justice to all boroughs—to Warwick as well as to Stafford—the course would not be liable to this objection. Let it be recollected that Stafford bad been honoured by the representation of men of the purest principles and most

367
commanding eloquence; and as long as history remained, the name of Sheridan would be registered in the annals of Stafford. Certainly, if Stafford were totally disfranchised, the disgraceful scenes proved in the Committee could not again occur; but why were the innocent to suffer, especially without any evidence of corruption at former elections? Sufficient had been shown before the Committee, to warrant the visitation of Stafford with severe punishment, but not with total disfranchisment.
Mr. Ordremarked, that a good deal of discussion had been saved by the general admission of considerable corruption in the borough of Stafford. He was for disfranchising the borough, and objected to throwing the writ into the adjoining hundred, by which the Member elected would be half Knight and half Burgess, while the nucleus of corruption would remain. He denied the correctness of the representations hitherto made, of the degree of corruption prevailing in Stafford. The cases of Hertford and of Warwick were, he contended, different from that then before the House; and he trusted that, whatever course might be adopted in reference to Stafford, it would not be made to form a part of any other constituency, for it would be most unwise, as well as most unjust, to make any attempt to mix purity and impurity together. Stafford had proved itself to be so corrupt, that no other body in the community could, with any show of fairness, be placed in connexion with the inhabitants of such a town. The great majority of the voters had been proved guilty of the offence of accepting bribes, and on that account, as well as for other reasons, he should decidedly object to any union of Stafford with Stone and Eccleshall.
Mr. Hardysaid, he would cordially give his vote for the total disfranchisement of the borough, because it was clearly proved, that there was not one-fourth of the electors who had not been bribed; and even that one-fourth, though the charge of bribery could not be brought home to them, had this at least against them, that they tamely looked on at the scenes of bribery and corruption which were going on around them, without taking any steps either to prevent them or to bring them before the public. Under a new and reformed Parliament it was peculiarly the duty of the House to visit cases of this kind with the severest punishment known to the law, and if it did not so proceed with the present case, it would be holding out an encouragement to
368
other boroughs to commit a similar offence. As to the confounding the innocent with the guilty, by the total disfranchisement of the borough, that objection did not apply in the present case. There were not a fourth of the inhabitants who had not taken bribes, and the fourth to whom the guilt of bribery and corruption could not be brought home, had looked on quietly, without taking any step to prevent or detect those who were proved to be guilty. An hon. Member had urged, as rather a singular objection to the Motion, that the borough of Stafford had had the honour of sending such a distinguished man as Sheridan as its representative to Parliament; and that, if disfranchised, it could not send such men again. No doubt that was a high honour, if he had been sent honourably by the electors of Stafford, but probably the fact of the right hon. Gentleman having so frequently sat for that borough would account for the pecuniary difficulties in which he was so much involved, for it was not probable that the electors of Stafford of that day would have returned a Member gratuitously, however distinguished, any more than their successors of the present. The House ought to look with a most scrutinizing eye at every expenditure of candidates, both before and after the election, in order to detect bribery.
Lord Althorpthought, that there could be no difference of opinion as to the principle involved in the Motion before the House. It certainly was the duty of the House, as the first meeting of a Reformed Parliament, to set their faces against any instance of bribery and corruption; and if ever there was a case of bribery and corruption clearly proved, it was in that now before the House. He, therefore, gave his cordial concurrence to the Motion.
Sir Henry Willoughbyconcurred in every word that had fallen from the noble Lord. Corrupt practices must be put an end to wherever they existed. The question before the House was, however, whether it was necessary totally to disfranchise the borough of Stafford, or by providing a numerous and sound constituency to prevent future mischief. There was a population of 20,000 near and about the town, in a rich and industrious country, comprising two populous and thriving towns within a reasonable distance. This was the more effectual and constitutional method of meeting the difficulty. The cases of Aylesbury, Shoreham, and Crick-lade, and others, proved that such treatment

369
was effectual. No instance could be quoted of corrupt practices where a new and extensive constituency was formed. It was of importance then to pursue a similar course in all such instances. Why pursue one course with the boroughs of Hertford and Warwick, and another with Stafford and Carrickfergus? He was sure that one uniform method would be the most likely way of preventing party intrigues, and would afford the most perfect guarantee against practices which all must wish to be at an end. He would vote for extending the constituency, and against total disfranchisement.
Amendment withdrawn, and leave given to bring in a Bill to disfranchise the Borough.

POST-OFFICE.
Mr. Robert Wallacerose to move "for copies of the instructions under which Postmasters claim a right to unfold or open letters in all or any of the Post-offices of Great Britain and Ireland." His Motion involved a serious charge either against the Postmaster-General, or some one acting by his authority, who had, in order to discover a fraud, committed a felony in the opening of letters. He should prove this before he sat down. He had had two interviews on the subject of his Motion with the Postmaster-General, who had received him with great urbanity, but no adequate remedy was proposed for the evil of which he complained. There were some means adopted at present of getting at the contents of letters, a practice which, if sanctioned or continued, violated that secrecy and confidence on which the public relied in placing their letters in the Post-office. It would ill become him to bring forward a charge of this kind if he had not made himself master, to a great extent, of the proceedings of this great establishment. He would, therefore, read to the House some extracts from the volume which was before him. The House need not be alarmed at the great size of that volume; he had no intention of reading more than a very small portion of it. It was a report from the Commissioners of Revenue in 1829. It was an able and searching report, and made many very useful suggestions as to the Post-office; but, so far as he could learn, they had not been attended with any effect; neither had the previous recommendations made in the reports of 1788 and 1797, though very wise and salutary. The Report of 1829, spoke of the facility, of the great and quick communication, afforded by the Post-office, which it said
370
might be classed amongst the elements of profitable commerce; and was of great importance as a branch of the public revenue. He admitted, that if well managed, it would be a profitable branch of revenue; but it was managed with meanness and parsimony, which greatly diminished the revenue which would accrue under a better management. The whole establishment should be placed on a different footing. The House had an opportunity, by the presence of the First Lord of the Admiralty, the Secretary to the Treasury, and other individuals connected with public departments, the advantage of making inquiries on the spot as to matters connected with them; but with respect to the Post-office, they had no such advantage, as there was no public officer in that House who represented it. The hon. Member next adverted to the report to show the great powers vested in the Postmaster General, and contended, that such extensive powers ought not to be vested in any one individual. No individual ought to have the power of arranging posts at his discretion, and of employing or dismissing public servants at his pleasure. It further appeared, that among his other extensive powers, the Postmaster-General had authority even to regulate the amount of postage on letters. The next department he should mention was the Secretary's office. The salary of the secretary was 300 l. a-year—a sum, however, which was raised by various compensations, fees, and emoluments, to 4,565 l. The duties of the Secretary's office comprised almost an entire delegation of the powers of the Postmaster-General. The hon. Member proceeded to read extracts from the Report of 1829, to show, that the remuneration of the clerks of the Post-office consisted partly of salaries and in part of allowances and emoluments of a different description. One of these sources of emolument was the Secretary's fund, of which 750 l. a-year was paid to the revenue, and the surplus to the Secretary's clerks. The amount of emoluments paid to clerks and others connected with the Post-office in England and Wales, and derived from various sources, was 39,000 l. a-year. In some departments the remuneration was very considerable, while in others it was trifling. Such irregularities and such a system of extra remuneration ought not to be permitted. In his opinion the whole system of the Post-office required revision. The charges of solicitors connected with the Post-office were not go-

371
verned by any known table of fees. He must deprecate also in strong terms, as improper and unconstitutional, the practice of Post-office solicitors, requiring the private correspondence of gentlemen to be submitted to them for the purpose of prosecuting the writers. In such cases the authority of the Postmaster-General was made subservient to the interests of the solicitor, who took on himself to institute proceedings when he saw fit. The result of this was, that the public purse was brought to bear against individuals under the exercise of an irresponsible power; notwithstanding which, however, the penalties recovered were trifling, probably because proceedings were frequently brought against poor persons. The hon. Member next adverted to the inland office, in which there were six clerks of the roads, paid by salaries and perquisites arising out of the sale of newspapers, and from other sources. A petition which could not be received had been that day brought before the House, complaining of grievous exactions on the part of the clerks of the roads in Ireland in the exercise of the powers intrusted to them. The Report stated—and every thing he had heard or seen confirmed the opinion—that the Post-office ought to be conducted on more liberal principles. It was stated, that there should be two places of delivery, one in the western as well as in the eastern part of the town; an earlier delivery of letters; and a delivery which should include the letters of all classes, both rich and poor, at one and the same hour: the difference which now existed in that respect was equally unfair and impolitic. He believed it could not be denied, that there was an early delivery of letters in the metropolis, for which an extra charge was made. The Report showed, that there were two deliveries at the Post-office called window deliveries. It appeared that the office of clerk of the roads was one of those which was least required, and which admitted of the most abuse. After referring to the Secretary's office, which comprehended the control of the whole department, the hon. Member observed that there were 101 statutes relating to the Post-office. How was it possible for people to guard against violations of these laws? The hon. Member next alluded to the parsimony of the Post-office in not sending expresses, on the arrival of the Jamaica and Oporto packets at Falmouth, after the despatch of the regular mail. It was not expecting too much to require that the post-office should, upon
372
such occasions, imitate the conduct of the newspapers, and despatch the intelligence by a post-chaise. The conductors of the public journals displayed no such parsimony as the Post-office. Perhaps they benefited by a priority of intelligence upon the Stock Exchange, independently of the other uses to which the news was put. He n-tended no charge against the conductors of newspapers,—he cast no blame upon them, oven if they did so benefit by the possession of early information. After quoting from the Report various details connected with Sunday arrivals and the management of the inland office, which the hon. Member described as being of a most complicated nature, he said it would require the full exorcise of the abilities of a trained and competent person, who had been educated in the establishment, to manage the Post-office. He did not see why the Post-office should not be conducted as the Excise and Customs, by persons qualified by experience and practical knowledge to manage the department to the best advantage. Allegations were now publicly made, that parcels were broken open by the Post-office, to the manifest inconvenience and injury of the mercantile community. To mention no other inconvenience, the mixing up of samples, which thus occurred, occasioned the most serious inconveniences. He believed the law was clear that such parcels should not be opened; and he had been informed, that one of the greatest commercial establishments in the city had bearded the Secretary and Solicitor of the Post-office, by declaring that they would continue to send letters in boxes, leaving it to the Post office to prosecute if it pleased. The next point he should mention related to ship-letters. In 1815 it was found impossible for the Post-office to collect a revenue from the home postage of letters going to the colonies; and there was an understanding that in future such letters should be sent out of the country free of postage, on the proviso that letters coming from the colonies should pay 2d. a-piece more than formerly; or 8d. instead of 6d., which latter was the old charge. The practice was pursued up to a recent period with advantage; but it was now broken in upon, and letters could not be sent with the same ease and frequency as heretofore, He was sorry he did not see the Vice-President of the Board of Trade in his place. If the right hon. Gentleman were present, he would appeal to him to apply the principles of free trade to the transmission of letters; above all things,

373
to remove all unnecessary restrictions, and provide for their security and rapid trans-mission. By the same law which enacted that ship-letters should pay 8d. postage, 2d. a piece was allowed for their carriage to the owners of the vessels which conveyed them. It was understood that the letters should be brought to the ports to which the ships were destined; but "no," said the Post-office, "the vessels shall be boarded by pilot-boats, &c., which shall carry away the letters, and land them at Falmouth, Plymouth, or where we please." The effect of this regulation was to convert the postage of 8d. into 20 d. or 21 d. the home postage, from the post being added to the original charge. The hon. Member instanced the transmission of a letter from New York by the packet-ship "Hudson" in December, 1827, which was taken out of the vessel by a pilot boat, and landed at Southampton. The letter was charged with the Plymouth postage, and a suspicion arose, not unnaturally, that the Plymouth post-mark had been placed upon it in London. He held the letter in his hand. He was ready to prove with respect to several thousand letters brought from the East Indies, that the twopences had been with-held from the captains of the ships which brought them, and never paid. What became of the money? He knew one instance of an American captain landing from a ship, and being requested to put a letter into the post-office of the port, but through mistake he carried it to London, and put it into the post-office here; the result was a prosecution and fine, [Sir James Graham: What is the date of the transaction?] Without going through the whole of the letter on the subject (which was a long one) he could not say. [Mr. Alderman Thompson said. The date is 1831, and the letter comes from Calcutta.] One of the reasons for objecting to letters being sent by private opportunities arose out of packets having been provided to convey communications to America and the colonies, But the provision was very inadequate; the worst class of vessels in the known world were his Majesty's packet-ships. They were dangerous, slow, and unsatisfactory. The speed of the American packets was much greater. It was not uncommon for the sailing of the packet from Jamaica to be announced here viâ New York, in consequence of the slowness of the one, and the speed of the other conveyance. The same defective and mischievous post-office system prevailed in the colonies as in the
374
mother country—a system of sponging upon the commercial community by unfair charges of commission and exchange upon newspapers and letters. He objected to the mode of charging on double letters, which was infinitely inferior to the French system of charging by weight. The latter practice avoided all pretence for scrutiny and examination, which were the grand mischiefs of the English system. He was satisfied that it was utterly impossible for any party to express his sentiments by single letters so as to be secure from observation in the Post-office, where an effectual method of examining the contents of letters existed by means of strong gas-lights, and a particular description of shade. He should produce letters so folded that it would appear the seals had been broken, under pretence, no doubt, of information being lodged against the parties. If the public knew this fact, they had better send their letters to the Post-office at once, without the protection of cither seal or wafer. For his own part, he had thought, till recently, that an un-sealed letter would have been as safe from inspection in the Post-office as upon the table of any Member of that House. Now, however, he was of a different opinion. He held in his hand copies of a correspondence between the noble Postmaster-general and himself, in which the noble Duke declared that he would do his utmost to put an end to the evils complained of. He believed, that the noble Duke had been to a certain extent successful; but he complained of the system, which allowed such proceedings to be repeated at any time under the noble Duke, or another Post master-General. He had received a communication from the Chairman of the Chamber of Commerce of Greenock, complaining of the abuses of the Post-office; and a memorial had been forwarded on the subject. In consequence of this he communicated with the Post-office, and the representative of the Postmaster-General at Edinburgh distinctly avowed, that there was "a necessity for examining every letter that passed through the Post-office," and, that "each postmaster had printed instructions directing him to ascertain whether letters had been legally conveyed, or whether any attempt had been made to evade the postage." A letter was sent to Mr. Ayton, a banker of Greenock, by the Post-office solicitor, requiring him to give up a certain letter, That letter he (Mr. Wallace) now held in his hand; it was written by a parish-clerk from a place about ten

375
miles from Greenock, summoning Mr. Ayton to a meeting; the clerk carried the letter in his pocket to Greenock, and put it into the Post-office, and it was delivered, and a penny postage charged for it. Upon this transaction it was, that the solicitor of the Post-office sought to inflict a penalty on Mr. Ayton. There was another letter from Glasgow, upon which penalties to the amount of 570 l. were sought to be recovered against J. Reed & Co., simply in consequence of the clerks of the Post-office having examined and discovered the contents of the letter.
Mr. Secretary Stanleyasked whether the right of examining letters had not been expressly disavowed by the noble Postmaster-General, and whether the hon. Member did not say that he was satisfied with that?
Mr. Robert Wallacehad told the Postmaster General, that he should be satisfied if a stop were put to the practices complained of, at the same time, he thought, that, as the law now stood, the Postmaster General did not possess sufficient power to put a stop to them, though he possessed the power to sanction much evil. He blamed the law, not the noble Duke, who had acted as well as he could. He had in his possession a communication from the Board of Trade at Greenock, referring to a statement on the part of the Postmaster General, declaring that the practices complained of should not in future occur at Greenock or elsewhere. Another he should refer to was addressed to James Scott and Co., wine merchants, and it was folded in that sort of manner that it was absolutely impossible its contents should be known (as they were known at the Post-office), unless the seal had been violated. In conclusion, he thought it necessary to state, that unless he received an assurance from Government of their intention to take the subject up, he should, in the next Session, move for a Select Committee to inquire into the state of the Post-offices of Great Britain and Ireland. The hon. Member then concluded by moving for Returns of all instructions or directions from authority under which Postmasters were authorized to open or unfold letters, or apply strong lamp lights for the purpose of ascertaining or reading the contents of letters fastened by wafer or wax, or unfastened; and for various other Returns connected with the management of the Post-office.
Mr. Buckinghamsaid, that the hon. Member was wrong in condemning the
376
practice of landing letters from inward-bound vessels at the outports. It was necessary to do so, as in many cases nearly a month elapsed after such vessels making land before they reached the ports of their destination. With respect to the old Post-office packets, he (Mr. Buckingham) could speak from his own knowledge on the subject, as he had been born at Falmouth; and he would challenge contradiction to the assertion, that of all the vessels that were ever constructed, the vessels carrying the Post-office mails were unrivalled for their speed. A prejudice had been of late created against the packets, in consequence of ships-of-war gun-brigs having been employed in the public service, and which had been commanded by naval officers; but enough remained of the old Post-office packets to show, that, for safety and speed, they were unrivalled.
Lord Althorpsaid, that he did not mean to object to the hon. Gentleman's Motion, at the same time, he must say, that a great portion of it might have been omitted, as the documents for which it called were documents that never existed. The hon. Gentleman was aware, that the Postmaster General had disavowed ever having given any authority to Deputy Postmasters in the country to open letters in order to ascertain where they were dated. But the hon. Gentleman handed to him, in proof, a letter across the Table; and he said, that it was impossible that the place from whence that letter was dated could be ascertained without opening the letter. Now, without breaking the seal or opening that letter, but in consequence of the awkward manner in which it had been folded, he, simply by looking into it, could, as easily as possible, read the word "Dublin," whence the letter was dated. But the Postmaster General had, as the hon. Gentleman was aware, disavowed having given to Deputy Post masters authority even to look into letters in that way, in order to discover their dates. The hon. Gentleman, however, must see, that the date of this letter might be discovered without opening it. The notice which the hon. Member had placed upon the paper had not certainly led him to expect such a statement as that which he had now made to the House, for that notice was for "copies of the instructions under which Postmasters claim a right to unfold or open letters in all or any of the Post-offices of Great Britain and Ireland." It was scarcely to be supposed, that, in bringing forward such a Motion as that,

377
the hon. Member would have gone into a general statement as to the whole conduct and management of the Post-office. There was not the slightest object to be gained in moving for such instructions, as no such instructions had ever been given by the Postmaster General, seeing that they would be instructions to commit a felony. The hon. Gentleman had referred to the Report of the Committee of Inquiry in 1829, to show the abuses that existed in the management of the Post-office. Now, he believed, that a large portion of the recommendations contained in that Report had been since carried into effect. The hon. Gentleman referred to a list of the clerks in the Post-office contained in the evidence submitted to that Committee, in order to show that, in many instances, more places than one were held by the clerk. He (Lord Al-thorp) would now state, upon the authority of his noble friend the Postmaster General, that, in the Post-office, at present, none of the clerks held more than one office. He would not follow the hon. Member through all his details, and for this simple reason, that looking, as he had said already, at the terms of the hon. Member's notice on the paper, he had not the least expectation that a general discussion of the whole system of the Post-office of England would have been entered upon on this occasion. With reference to the complaint made of the Post-office at Greenock, he was informed, that the hon. Member had expressed himself perfectly satisfied with the result of his application on that point to the Postmaster General. The hon. Gentleman was aware, that a fraud had been, in that instance, committed upon the revenue by the conveyance of the letter from Dublin to Greenock, where it was thrown into the Post-office. He was not prepared to go into the general discussion which the hon. Member had opened. He would merely caution the House against supposing that the statement made by the hon. Member applied to the existing system in the Post-office. Not only the Report to which the hon. Gentleman had referred, but one of the cases which he had cited were of old date; the latter occurred in 1827, and the Report was made in 1829, and it was hardly possible, that, taken unawares as they had been in this instance, he (Lord Althorp) and his colleagues could give any explanation of the circumstances to which the hon. Member had thus alluded.
Mr. Charles Stuartsaid, that he had
378
come down to the House under the expectation that the Greenock case would not have been gone into, for, on a former day, he, in company with the hon. member for Greenock and others, had waited upon the Postmaster-General, and had received from his Lordship a most satisfactory explanation with regard to it. Indeed, the hon. Member expressed himself then so satisfied with the explanation in question that he (Mr. Stuart) understood him to say that he would either withdraw or postpone his Motion on the subject. Was it fit and proper, under such circumstances, for the hon. Member to endeavour to spring a mine under them, and under the Post-master-General, and to bring the whole Post-office establishment of the kingdom before the House? With regard to the people of Greenock, they were perfectly satisfied as might be seen from the public Press there, with the result of the interview with the noble Duke at the head of the Post-office department. The general and very important subject into which the hon. Member had gone ought not to have been brought forward in this way. To all persons engaged as he was in commerce the undeviating regularity and despatch exhibited in the operations of such an extensive establishment as the Post-office were a matter of wonder. As the particular evil of which the hon. Member complained was in course of remedy, it was not fair towards the noble Postmaster General, or the establishment over which he presided, to drag it before the House in the way that the hon. Member had done. Great credit was due to that noble Duke for what he had done last Session to meet the wishes of the people of Glasgow in facilitating the intercourse with that town; and as to the Greenock case, the people of Greenock were satisfied with the explanation that had been given.
Lord Lowthersaid, he wished to put a question to the noble Lord with regard to the laws relating to the Post-office. Many and well-founded complaints had been made as to the laws and regulations of the Post-office. He would refer the noble Lord to the Report of the Revenue Commissioners in 1818, who recommended a consolidation of all the Acts relating to the Post-office. The Acts at present in force relating to the Post-office amounted to no less than 101; and when, therefore, any one had occasion to refer to the law with respect to the Post-office, he was placed in the greatest possible state of perplexity.

379
He begged to ask whether the noble Lord in the next Session would propose a Committee of Inquiry for the purpose of consolidating the Post-office Acts, as those relating to all the other revenue boards had been consolidated; when questions as to the general management of the Post-office, would be fairly and fully and properly discussed.
Lord Althorpcould not at present give a pledge on the subject.
Mr. Cobbettwould recommend the hon. member for Greenock (Mr. R. Wallace) not to have interviews again. They were very dangerous things. What he would say with regard to the Post-office was this—that a letter had been posted in the country addressed to him in London, which he had never received—that two witnesses could swear as to the putting the letter into the Post-office in the country—that the Postmaster there was ready to swear that he had received it; and yet the letter in question never reached his address. He made application to the General Post-office in London; but could get no account of his letter. It was a letter of some consequence, intended to be printed. He therefore had to complain of the General Post-office. It appeared in the present case that the Postmaster in Greenock stated, that he bad authority to open letters. If he had not that authority—if he had not the right to do so—he ought to have been punished. Had he been punished? There was no answer to that question. He would recommend all who had complaints to make to make them to that House. He believed that the Post-office read all the letters that it liked to read.
Mr. Secretary Stanleysaid, that it would no doubt be a source of great regret indeed to his noble friend the Postmaster-General, to suppose that any possible neglect in the department over which he presided should have delayed, even for a single week, the transmission of those elaborate compositions which the hon. Member intended for publication in the Register. [Mr. Cobbett: They never appeared at all.] Still greater must be the regret, then, that they failed in reaching their destination. But with regard to the more serious complaint as to the opening of letters, the hon. Member said, that every one who had a complaint to make against the Post-office, or other public departments, should come with them to the House of Commons, Now, he (Mr. Stanley) thought it would be better and safer for the individual to apply in the
380
first instance to the department of which he had to make a complaint. If he did not get redress there, then let him apply to the House of Commons; that was the proper course: but to say that every man who thought that his letters were opened either in Scotland or in England should come to the House of Commons at once, instead of applying to the Post-office for redress, was to say that that House should take upon itself an unnecessary load of business, without any prospect of thereby effecting any good. As to this present charge of breaking open the Greenock letter, which, in point of fact was not broken open, the letter itself was a fraud upon Government, for, though written in Dublin, it was taken over and put into the Post-office at Greenock. This fact was not disputed; the date was clearly to be seen by merely looking into the letter. Now here was a clear fraud; and it was, moreover, a fraud by which Government were defrauded of no small sum every day in the year: in point of fact, this species of fraud was carried on systematically at this place. It must be acknowledged, however, that the Postmaster at Greenock bad in this case exceeded his duty, even though it were only in reading the portion of the letter alluded to. He must complain of the hon. Member who sought to turn the information he had obtained from the Post-office against that department, and even after he had stated in private, that with that information he was perfectly satisfied. Let the hon. Member bring forward any specific grievance; let him not turn to the reports of 1828, for the grievances therein referred to had been redressed; let him make a substantive motion; and he would find the Post-office department quite as ready to court inquiry as he was to institute it, and give relief for every case of grievance which could be proved to exist. If the hon. Member proved that any frauds were committed by any public officer, he would find no person more ready to suppress them than the noble person at the head of that department. Of the hon. Member's present Motion he must complain, for it could have no practical result.
Mr. O'Dwyerwas prepared to prove, that the officers of the Post-office in Ireland were engaged in a traffic by which they defrauded the revenue. He knew that Clerks of the Roads—and he had documents to prove it—sent unstamped publications when they were ordered, through these Clerks of the Roads, free of postage. He had circu-

381
lars in his hands announcing that and other similar facts, not in one instance alone, but in many.
Lord Althorpcould assure the hon. Member, that the Clerks of the Roads were not authorised to forward any unstamped publications free. If they did so, those publications would be charged to them. Certainly, if the hon. Member could prove the existence of frauds—if be could prove that the Clerks of the Roads did commit these frauds on the Government—he should be most ready to receive the information, and make use of it.
Mr. O'Dwyerwould most readily place his documents in the hands of the noble Lord, and prove the statements he had made.
Mr. Robert Wallace, in reply, repelled the attack made on him by Mr. Stanley, and denied, that he had seen any explanation of the circumstance mentioned in a Greenock paper. He reiterated his assertion, that letters should not be opened, as they were at present liable to be opened on account of the tax.
Motion agreed to.

FOREIGN ENLISTMENT ACT.
Mr. John Murrayrose to move for leave to bring in a Bill to repeal the 59th Geo. 3rd. cap. 69, commonly called the Foreign Enlistment Act. He had hoped that some person of more weight than himself would have brought forward this Motion; for there never was an Act of the Legislature so little in accordance with the general opinions of the country. Parliament, however, when it passed that Act, was influenced by reasons which now did not exist. It was strongly urged that the country had made a treaty with Spain in 1814, and that, in accordance with that treaty, we were bound in good faith and honour, to pass a law of that description. That was the strongest reason which was urged in favour of the measure at the time. Mr. Canning, who supported the Bill, stated that in the strongest terms, and that reason prevailed. The House was satisfied; but the law had never given satisfaction to the country. He condemned the law, because it was unjust, unnecessary, inexpedient, and not calculated to give satisfaction to any of the parties interested. It was unjust, because it was the natural right of every man, when his country did not want his services, or could not employ him, to carry his industry, his skill, his talents, and his arms, into the service of any foreign
382
country which might want his assistance. In particular the Act was most unjust to those gallant officers who had been dismissed at the peace, and who had no other means, not merely of raising themselves into distinction, but of saving themselves from poverty, except that of continually exercising their talents in that profession to which they had devoted their lives. Was it just to brand such men as criminals when they accepted foreign service?—and was it just to make their doing so a misdemeanor in the eye of the law? He did not deny the power of the Legislature to make such a law, but he denied the justice of the enactment. There was no greater spoliation than that which deprived a man of his natural right and natural liberty to make the most be could of his talents and his time. There was no right of property which, in his estimation, ought to be held more sacred than the right of every man to make the most he could by his industry. Yet for officers, whose business was arms, to enter a foreign service, was by this Act branded as a misdemeanor and a crime. He said, therefore, that the law was unjust; and it was as unnecessary as it was unjust. It was not necessary to preserve neutrality. He was prepared to prove, though he would not then trespass on the House, that there was no writer of any authority on the Laws of Nations—neither Vattel nor Bynkershoeck, who laid it down as a breach of neutrality, for individuals to serve in any country whatever. Provided men did not carry arms against their native Sovereign, they were at liberty to enter a foreign service, and were not guilty of a breach of neutrality by their entering into such a service. The Act was inexpedient, because it gave rise to complaints of a breach of neutrality, when the Government was unable to prevent its subjects entering a foreign service. It promised, therefore, what it could not perform, and was inexpedient by making, foreign Governments look to our Government for what it could not accomplish. It was, he thought, also useful, that our officers should keep up their skill in arms, when our own country was at peace; and it was, far better than starving at home, that they should go abroad, where they improved their skill, and added to the military renown and glory of their country. He would not say, that the Government ought to encourage them to go, neither ought it to restrain them on the ground of taking care of them. The Government was not to consider itself a careful nurse of

383
men, and keep them out of danger; it should leave them to run the risk, or take care of themselves. The law was useless, too, and merely encumbered the Statute-book. If it had no effect, it might be asked why he complained of it? He complained of it because it encumbered the Statute-book, and because it was a disgrace to the Legislature to frame enactments which were of no use. Nobody now desired the continuance of the law. There was no large class of the community who wished it to be retained. He believed, however, that his Motion was not to be opposed, and he would not enter into long arguments with a view of refuting objections that might never be made. He would not tire the House with going further into the subject, as he should only risk disturbing that unanimity of feeling in favour of his Motion which he believed would prevail. The hon. Member concluded by moving for leave to bring in his Bill.
Mr. Cobbettdid not rise to oppose the Motion, but merely to state, that he believed that the hon. Member was wrong in his law. The hon. Member had referred to Vattel, and some writer with a hard German name; but all those writers must admit, that the Government must have power to restrain its subjects and prevent them going into foreign service, or it would have no power to protect itself. The hon. Member contended that we ought to supply neither party with stores or men. Such was the doctrine laid down by the American Government during two wars, and on that doctrine it had successfully acted. With respect to officers starving, that could not be, for they had all half-pay; and as that half-pay was given them to retain their services in future for their own Sovereign, how was that compatible with entering a foreign service?' He said he did not mean to oppose the Motion; he only rose to say that he thought the hon. and learned Gentleman was wrong in his law.
Sir Robert Inglisdid not rise to oppose the Motion, but to protest against some of the doctrines of the hon. Member. The hon. Member spoke of men entering a foreign service as if they might abandon their country. He must object strongly to the doctrine of the hon. Member. The hon. and learned Gentleman had referred to the natural right of men to carry their talents, their skill, and their arms, into the services of foreigners for the purposes of war. He must deny that there was any such right. It was making that the common
384
privilege of individuals, which was the last resource of patriotism, to which nations under the guidance of reason could apply. No man, he contended, had a right to kill his fellow man, except in the cause of his country. No man had a right to shed blood. The command was, that blood should not be shed. He was afraid, from what he saw, that the House was prepared to admit, that men might carry their strength to a market of blood. He heard it said, that men might fight for a good cause; then one side in every contest in Europe must be good. That would risk embroiling us with every State in Europe. That, however, was not the only view in which he objected to the doctrine of the hon. and learned Gentleman. He objected to it, because the doctrine was injurious to the principles of morality, and was subversive of all rational liberty. If they admitted the doctrine of the hon. Member, they must be prepared to run the race of the Buccaneers at sea, and of the Condottieri on land. It would revive the law and the trade in war which existed in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries. He denied that any men could engage in a war, or take life, except by the command of their lawful King. War was not a game for subjects to play at, nor for Kings either; and was only to be had recourse to, and could only be considered lawful, when in defence of the liberty of the country and of religion. He saw it was in vain to oppose the Motion, and he did not rise for that purpose, but only to protest against the doctrines of the hon. Member.
Mr. O'Connellsaid, none of the arguments of the hon. Baronet had shown that the Act was operative and effective, or could be made so. In fact, it could not. What had happened in Ireland? Why twenty-five Acts had been passed against the Irish entering into foreign service, threatening them with all the horrors of drawing and quartering; and, within fifty-years after the Treaty of Limerick, 144,000 Irish had perished in the service of France. The present Act was a most clumsy contrivance. It could not be executed. Parties offending against it could only be convicted by the evidence of an accomplice, which was precisely that sort of evidence a man would not like to trust. This Act was imperative on nobody. It bound neither the Crown nor the people to execute it. The Crown could dispense with it by a proclamation, and it exposed the Crown to suspicions. The party

385
which desired to enforce its operation, finding it not successful, of course accused the Government, and thus it might give rise to war. It was a statute which ought not to exist; it was wholly unwarranted, and it ought to be repealed. With respect to the doctrine of the hon. Baronet, it might be carried further. It would, perhaps, justify those men who went about among the soldiers distributing pamphlets three or four years ago, telling them that war was a bloody trade. The doctrine of the hon. Member did not go far enough, or it went a great deal too far. The hon. Member said, that a lawful King might command war; but he (Mr. O'Connell) said, that no lawful King could properly command his subjects to cut the throats of men in an unjust cause. He admitted, that men might fight for liberty and for their country; but he denied that they might fight for religion. He protested against the doctrine that men should fight in defence of their religion. There was no doctrine which had done so much mischief in the world as that of fighting for religion. Religion was not made to be fought for, and there was bitterness enough in the world without mixing up blood in the chalice of salvation. He felt it his duty to protest against the doctrine of the hon. Member. It was time that men were disabused of the notion that they might fight and shed blood, if they were commanded, by a lawful King. That doctrine struck at the root of all morality. Men should only fight in a just and good cause. He must say, that he did not think the hon. member for Oldham was very correct in his law. Men might engage, he thought, in any war, if it were just. Foreign nations might have just wars as well as ourselves, and in them a man, convinced of the justice, might properly serve. It must, to be sure, be a strange conviction which could enter the mind of any man, that the cause of Miguel was just, yet beef and pork were sent from here to support him, and arms for his men to kill the Pedroites; everything was supplied to him. The only question was, could he pay? But when it was admitted, that the instruments of war might be supplied, was it forgotten that those instruments were made by men? The instant, however, a man went to use the instruments, then it became a crime. Could any man believe in his conscience that the gallant Napier, in assisting Don Pedro, was guilty of a crime? That gallant officer was fighting in the cause of constitutional freedom. He
386
was assisting to establish a portion of the democratic principle in the South of Europe, and fighting the good fight against that despotism which might otherwise overshadow the earth. No man could think that this was abominable. The conquest of the gallant Napier had rescued one part of Europe; freedom might be secure on that side, and might now turn her attention towards the despot of the north, and be prepared to clip his eagle wings. The question was in that state that he thought it wrong to take up the time of the House, but he would give the Motion his hearty support.
Colonel Evanswould not quarrel with the essays of morality which had been pronounced by the hon. Baronet, the member for Oxford, though he must complain of the comparison on which the hon. Baronet had placed the gallant heroes who would serve in a good cause with the buccaneers and condottieri of former times. The buccaneer had served solely with a view to plunder, and with a total indifference as to the cause in which he served; not so in the case now before the House. Neither could the individuals affected by the Foreign Enlistment Bill be put in comparison with the condottieri, for, unlike that body, they did not serve the cause which could pay the best. If any man could bring himself to believe, that the cause of Don Miguel was just, it would be an injustice to prevent others from embarking in that of Don Pedro. In every point of view, he considered the repeal of this Act desirable, and particularly as the employment of officers in the British service in warfare would contribute, in case of need, greatly to the efficiency of the army of this country. The navy of this country had been much strengthened by the recent achievements of Captain Napier, as it had previously been by those of Lord Cochrane, in the cause of freedom, and it was expedient to repeal a Bill which had been inoperative for good, but operative for evil purposes. The Bill originated twenty years ago, in a wish to prevent the service of British subjects in the South American war; yet 20,000 English subjects had been engaged in those wars, which had not only damaged the commerce of this country, but also had greatly prolonged the horrors of those wars. So, also, in the case of Greece, with regard to which there was a declared neutrality on the part of the Government of this country; yet when the contest continued, the Government had found it necessary to interpose. This would not

387
have been required if the present law had not existed, neither would the Russians be, as they now were, in possession of the Black Sea. The war in Portugal had been protracted in the same way, and he believed, that, but for the law now in force, a saving of from 200,000 l. to 300,000 l. a-year would have been made in the pension-list of this country, because many lives would have been lost in the war, and many officers would have been otherwise employed.
Mr. Cobbett, in explanation, said, that the law of the Holy Alliance, as this was called, went word for word with an Act passed eighteen months before by the American Congress.
Sir James Scarletthad opposed the Bill in question when it was first brought forward, and experience had proved to him that it afforded no practical advantage. He must, however, remind his hon. and learned friend opposite (Mr. Murray), that, if he repealed the Bill generally, he would make that a felony which now only amounted to a misdemeanour. He was not disposed so much to differ from the law of the hon. member for Oldham. It was admitted, on all hands, that there was a power by the common law in the Sovereign to restrain his subjects from joining or engaging in a war, and after a proclamation, by making it a misdemeanour. He had ever thought that power sufficient. By the common law it was an act of felony for a British subject, after the proclamation of his Sovereign, to join the army of any acknowledged government; but this did not apply to revolted provinces, and hence it was, that, with regard to South America, complaints had been made by the Spanish minister, that the laws for the prevention of interference by British subjects were unequal. He should support the Motion so far as it went to restore the old common law of the land.
Sir Edward Codringtonsupported the Motion, and observed that he differed from the statement that there was no distress amongst those who had served their country. He would ask, was 250 l. a-year a fitting reward for a man like Captain Napier, who had encountered so many dangers and disasters? The distress amongst half-pay officers was great, and it was refused to afford a man the opportunity, by his own exertions, of alleviating that distress. It had occurred to himself', that on an application he had made to the Admiralty, on behalf of a lieutenant in the navy, leave had been refused to hire to engage as mate on board a merchantman.
388
The half-pay of the individual was about 90 l. a-year, and it was said at the Admiralty, that such a service as that in which he sought permission to engage, was not worthy the station he held. He could not see why, when merchants were not impeded in their traffic with contending parties, those engaged in the service of this country, actuated not by desire of mere lucre, but by feelings of high honour, should be prevented re-embarking their services in any cause they liked. He felt indignant to hear gallant officers, who had gloriously engaged in such service, spoken of in the manner which had reached his ears. As to the service of this country in a pecuniary point of view, he had himself told fathers rather to cut their sons' throats than to permit them to enter it. He must confess, that he honoured the services of Captains Napier and Sartorius upon the recent occasions, and when the importance was considered of an opportunity of bringing up young officers so as to be able gloriously to carry on a war, should it, contrary to his wishes, arise, he was sure the House would be unanimous in getting rid of this odious Bill. He called it an odious Bill, because it prevented the advancement of those engaged in the service of their country, while it presented no obstacle to an avaricious trading in the materials by which alone a warfare could be carried on. He gloried in the breach of this law by Captains Napier and Sartorius, and they had added to the reputation of their country, and he hoped would be restored to their rank in its navy.
Mr. Finchgave every credit to the valour of the gallant officers who had been mentioned, but he thought, on the consideration of such a subject, the interests of the State ought not to be forgotten. The House ought to pause before it did away with a law which might become essentially necessary, under a peculiar state of circumstances that might arise.
Lord Althorpwas of opinion, from the experience he had of the Bill, that it was detrimental to the country, as well as inoperative in itself; and, therefore, he most certainly thought it should not remain on the Statute-book. Much had been said about a breach of neutrality as to contending parties, but he thought, if the laws of a country allowed its subjects to assist both according to their own feelings, there could not be said to be any breach of neutrality. He could conceive cases in which it would be the bounden duty of the

389
sovereign to interfere with the powers with which he was invested by the common law—he meant in cases of the training and disciplining of troops in this country for the service of foreign states, which clearly would be a breach of the common law, and might be much better prevented by it than by any provision contained in the Foreign Enlistment Bill. By repealing that law, the Sovereign would not be liable to the imputation of not enforcing the execution of the law, which was almost impossible. He should, therefore, give his most cordial support to the Motion.
Mr. Kemyss Tyntesupported the Motion, and deprecated the comparison upon which the hon. Baronet (the member for Oxford), had placed the British sailors with buccaneers and condottieri; the first fought for the cause of liberty, and the latter for those who could pay the best. He should vote for the Motion if it only had the chance of restoring Captain Napier to his rank in the British navy.
Mr. Robert Grantconsidered the question before the House to be entirely independent either of questions of neutrality, or the effect of the common law; and it was practicable to vote for the repeal of the act in question, without broaching either of those topics, both of which had been introduced into the debate. It must be in the recollection of many hon. Members the grounds upon which the Bill had been introduced by Mr. Canning in the year 1814. Mr. Canning had then stated the Bill to originate in a treaty with Spain, under which the Sovereign of these realms had undertaken that no supply of arms, ammunition, or men, should be afforded from this country to South America, and that no security was afforded to the Crown for the fulfilment of this treaty without the passing of the Act in question. Though the Bill pledged the nation generally to neutrality, yet it never was intended to pledge its subjects individually from engaging, if they should so think fit, in foreign services; and reverting to the history of this country, he felt no hesitation in now giving his support to the present Motion. Without acceding to the accuracy of the law laid down by his hon. and learned friend who had brought forward the Motion, he should reserve to himself the right to discuss the provisions of the Bill when it should be introduced.
Leave given—Bill brought in and read a first time.

BOROUGH OF LEICESTER.
Mr. Halfordsaid, he rose to bring forward a Motion of which he had given notice, and the object of which was to rescind the order made in the month of May last. That was an order upon the Corporation of the Borough of Leicester, to lay before the House certain Returns relative to the amount of the income of some property left for charitable purposes, under the will of Sir Thomas White, in 1556, and also relative to the manner in which that income was expended. The value of those funds depended on the respectability of those to whom they were intrusted, and those trustees were amenable to the Court of Chancery for any abuses of which they might be guilty. If any evils existed, the Court of Chancery was the place in which to seek for the remedy against the trustees of a charity, and not in the arbitrary interference of this House. Besides this, these trustees might be called to account before the Boards of Commissioners acting under the authority of the Act passed to regulate charities, which Act was in full operation. In his opinion the trustees ought not to comply with this order, and he hoped the House would not think of confirming it. The charity was directed to assist individuals by the loans of money. These individuals were generally tradesmen, to whom such assistance was sometimes of the utmost importance, and whose names it would be invidious to disclose in the manner now required. He trusted, therefore, that the House would not exert its authority in this matter, which was only brought forward to gratify a turbulent faction in a country town. He moved that the order be rescinded.
Mr. William Evansobserved, that his constituents wished to know the manner in which these funds were administered, and they had good reason to do so. The property was supposed to amount to 15,000 l., which was lent out in sums of 100 l. each, to different individuals; and it was payable only at the end of nine years, and then without interest. Application had been made to the Court of Chancery, and twenty-seven years ago an order for an account of all the names of the persons to whom these loans had been made was granted by that Court, but no information had yet been obtained. An order of that House, of a similar kind, in 1828, had been equally unavailing. The general feeling of the people of Leicester was, that these loans were not made impartially as

391
Sir Thomas White would have required but were employed for the purpose of keeping up a political influence in the town; and that by them such influence had, in fact, been kept up. The Corporation had more than once proved that they knew how to meddle with election matters. He should, therefore, press the House to reject the Motion of the hon. Member.
Sir James Scarlettwas convinced that if the attention of the House could have been fully drawn to the order at the time it was moved, the order never would have been made. The House could not grant it without an improper interference with private property. If the trustees had been guilty of abusing their trust, the Court of Chancery, and not that House was the place in which to call them to account. No tribunal could be worse fitted for doing impartial justice in the case than the House of Commons, and he implored the Members not to set so dangerous a precedent. The Motion had his hearty support.
Mr. Humesaid, that no Corporation had more misapplied its funds for political purposes than that of Leicester, and all that was wanted was full information. The House of Commons was the fittest channel for obtaining that information. It really seemed as if the Corporation was afraid of inquiry, and, therefore, did not like to produce the papers. All that was needed were facts, without the intervention of the Court of Chancery.
The Attorney Generalreminded the House, that the funds, the distribution of which was to be inquired into, were not corporate, but private property. Every day a Court of Equity dealt with, and decided such questions, and the parties were put to their oaths upon the subject. The House could not take into its hands the administration of charities, which belonged to the functions of a Court of Justice. If the Corporation of Leicester mal-administered the funds, it was liable to an information ex officio by the Attorney General, who could not, without the risk of condign punishment, refuse his sanction to such a proceeding. This course would both reach and remedy the evil, if any existed. The Commissioners of charities would soon examine into the subject, and expose the abuses of the charity.
Mr. Wynn Elliscontended, that this charity was a public trust, and that the House ought, therefore, so far to interfere as to order the documents to be produced.
Motion negatived.

CANADA.
Mr. Hume Mr. Hume moved for a copy of the official correspondence which had taken place on the removal and subsequent restoration of the Attorney and Solicitor General of Upper Canada. He thought that, in reference to that matter, the conduct of the right hon. Gentleman (the Secretary for the Colonies) had been so injudicious and ill-advised, that unless explained and justified, he must say, that it was, in every point of view, deserving of blame. There had been loud and earnest complaints of the mode in which the affairs of that colony had been administered, and he could not understand how two Secretaries of State could act in a manner so totally different from each other, when both of them were Members of the same Government. The functionaries, to whose conduct his Motion referred, appeared to have been dismissed in the just and fair vindication of the authority of the Secretary of State, and since then those Gentlemen had been restored, contrary to the wishes of the people resident in the colony, and for no reason that he could possibly discover. The complaints of the colonists were unattended to, and, in his judgment, the whole system of our colonial policy was erroneous and mischievous, and ought forthwith to be reformed.
Mr. Secretary Stanleysaid, that the hon. member for Middlesex, had made out no case to justify the demand made for the production of those papers, which, though in some degree public, were also somewhat in the nature of private communications. The hon. Member had said, that there was great discontent in the colony, in consequence of the proceeding to which he had adverted; but he had not gone into detail, and he (Mr. Stanley) trusted, the House would dispense, at that hour, with any details of the local politics of Upper Canada. He concurred with those who contended, that the Government had a right to the full and cordial support of its officers; but the Government themselves could be the only judges what did and what did not constitute a support of their measures. The two functionaries in question had not been objected to on any ground connected with the mode in which they had discharged their official duties; and as to the support of opposition which they gave to Government, they were, he thought, matters with which the House could not well interfere.
Motion withdrawn.

TITHE ARREARS (IRELAND).
The Report of the Resolution for granting the sum of one million sterling for the Arrear of Tithes (Ireland) was brought up.
On the Motion that it be read,
Mr. Humeprotested against this grant as a shameful charge upon the funds of this country, and as contrary to every promise held out in the commencement of the Session.
Mr. Littletonagreed, that the people of England ought not to be called upon to support the Irish clergy as a general rule; but the present money was granted under peculiar circumstances of distress on the part of that clergy; and, besides this, there was every prospect that the whole amount of the grant would be ultimately repaid into the Exchequer, and thus the country would suffer no loss.
Mr. Aglionbystrongly protested against the grant as most unjust, most impolitic, and most inexpedient. If the Irish clergy were so distressed as was described, let the over-fed portion of the clergy support their poorer brethren. The Irish Church Temporalities Bill had been in a great measure destroyed by the declaration that the Temporalities of the Church were to be dedicated solely to Ecclesiastical purposes; at any rate, let the support of these poor clergy be included in these Ecclesiastical purposes.
The House divided on the Question, that "The Report be read"—Ayes 34; Noes 15—Majority 19.
The Report was read; and a Bill according to the Resolution ordered to be brought in.

List of the
AYES.

Agnew, Sir A.

Molyneux, Lord

Althorp, Viscount

Morpeth, Lord

Bentinck, Lord

Murray, J. A.

Campbell, Sir J.

O'Reilly, W.

Childers, J.

Penleaze, J. F.

Duncannon, Lord

Philpot, John

Ebrington, Lord

Plumptre, J. P.

Egerton, W. T.

Poyntz, W. S.

Ellice, Right Hon. E.

Shaw, E.

Evans, W.

Stanley, Rt. Hn. E. G.

Gordon, R.

Stewart, P. M.

Graham, Sir J.

Sullivan, P.

Hay, Colonel

Thomson, Rt. Hn. P.

Hyett, W. H.

Wood, C.

Inglis, Sir R.

Wood, G. W.

Johnstone, A.

TELLERS.

Kennedy, T. F.

Brougham, W.

Littleton, Rt. Hn. E.

Baring, Francis

Lowther, Lord

394

List of the NOES.

ENGLAND.

SCOTLAND.

Beauclerk, Major

Wallace, R.

Blamire, W.

IRELAND.

Brotherton, J.

Blake, M.

Dykes, F. L. B.

O'Dwyer, A. C.

Evans, Col.

Ruthven, E. S.

Gisborne, T.

Ruthven, E.

Hall, B.

Vigors, N. A.

Hawes, B.

TELLERS.

James, W.

Aglionby, H. A.

Hume, J.