Commons Sitting of 28 August 1833

MINUTES.
Papers ordered. On the Motion of Lord ALTHORP, Returns of the Number of Ship Letter Bags,

897
&c, and sealed Packages, despatched from the General Post Office, London, to Places beyond the Seas, from 1st January, 1832, to 16th August, 1833, &c.
Petitions presented. By Mr. COBBETT, from Warwick, against further Restrictions on the Sale of Beer; from Swansea, in favour of the Tithes Stay of Suits Bill.—By Mr. VIGORS, from St. Tancras, for Carrying into Execution the Report of the Public Walks Committee; from Neath Abbey, for the Abolition of Tithes.—By Mr. WAR BURTON, from the Royal College of Physicians, Edinburgh, for an Inquiry into the State of the Medical Profession.

DECCAN PRIZE MONEY.
Mr. Warburtonrose to ask the question of which he had given notice, relative to the Deccan prize money. It was, whether, after the important discoveries which had taken place with regard to that fund, the Treasury would not think it fit to give the parties a regular hearing, at the Treasury itself, or to refer to the Court of Admiralty, or to a Special Commission. The facts were these—on the 22nd of June, 1825, a letter was addressed by the trustees to the Treasury, regarding the manner in which they would recommend the distribution of the money to take place, and pointing out certain facts which they thought they had discovered during their investigation. On the 14th of September following, they wrote another letter to the Treasury, stating, that on reconsidering the case, they wished to withdraw the first letter, and to substitute another of a very different nature; in fact, altogether at variance with that of the 22nd of June. When the case came to be argued before the Treasury in 1826, the substituted letter was referred to on the part of the Counsel for the Crown, but the whole of the information was withheld from the parties. The trustees were present at the argument, and were in possession of the facts stated both in the orginal and published letter. The latter document had been completely falsified, inasmuch as a most important paragraph was omitted. Other documents of a most important nature, which were in possession of the Marquess of Hastings, had been withheld from the other party, and if such irregular proceedings were allowed to go on, the whole of the judicial inquiry which had been instituted would be of no avail. He, therefore, wished to know, whether it was the intention of the Treasury to divide the money before another hearing was given to those parties who had been deprived of that information to which they were clearly entitled. If the parties were allowed to be heard, they would be enabled to point out many errors, and to adduce such reasons as he had no doubt would lead Ministers to postpone
898
the distribution of the money. He would conclude by moving an Address to his Majesty, "that the Petitions of Generals Hislop and Smith be referred again to the Privy Council."
Colonel Evanshad very great respect for the intentions of the hon. Member, but he must protest against the adoption of the course he had advocated, for he seemed to argue the case as that of a Chancery suit and a matter of private property, without any reference whatever to the public. If the course recommended by the hon. Member should be adopted, he (Colonel Evans) would venture to say, that the distribution of the money would be delayed for ten years longer. The hon. Member had alluded to the recent and important discoveries which had been made in regard to the correspondence, but he (Colonel Evans) did not believe those discoveries were of any great importance, so far as the great body of the captors were concerned. He respected the great services of Generals Hislop and Smith; but there was a numerous class of more humble captors, who ought to be considered. If the proposition were acceded to, it would entirely defeat the objects of the public with regard to prize property. There was no reason to suppose the Government wished to act partially in this matter, but they had certainly acceded too easily to individual importunity. He would earnestly request the Treasury to decide the question without any further judicial proceedings whatever, for he was convinced that the great body of the surviving captors—for vast numbers of them were dead—would be perfectly content with whatever decision the Government might come to.
Mr. Crawfordconcurred in what had fallen from the hon. and gallant Officer, and he hoped that no further delay would take place in the distribution of the money.
Lord Althorpsaid, the House was aware that the papers relating to this question had been laid upon the Table, and it was his intention to apply himself to the substantial merits of the question. It was necessary, however, that, to a certain extent, he should make himself master of those papers, before he could possibly give any direct answer to the question put by the hon. Member opposite. The Privy Council, as had been stated, had referred the matter to the Treasury, which had to decide whether they should think it their duty to hear the case argued before them, or act upon the former decisions. But it was impossible

899
for him at present to say which might be the better course, until he had time to examine the papers now before the House. Up to the present moment he had not had that opportunity. Now, however, he should have more time, and he should certainly endeavour to make himself master of the case; and he hoped that in the meanwhile, this statement being satisfactory, he might have the confidence of the House that the Treasury, whatever steps they might take, were determined to come to a fair and impartial conclusion.
Motion withdrawn.

FOREIGN AFFAIRS.
Mr. Thomas Attwoodrose for the purpose of asking some questions respecting the foreign policy of the country, which he was anxious to have answered, as far as the noble Lord could consistently with his public duty, develope the plans of his Majesty's Government. He was rejoiced at the course which Government had at last adopted towards Donna Maria: but, in other respects, he must say that he was much dissatisfied with the general policy pursued by Government for many years past, in relation to Spain, Italy, Turkey, and Poland. With regard to Portugal, however, he was satisfied with what had now taken place; and he could not but express a hope, that, with regard to Poland and Turkey, Government would soon pursue such measures as the honour and interests of this country imperatively demanded. With regard to Turkey, he would merely remark, that it was generally believed that Russia had gone so far as to threaten England if she interfered and granted assistance to Turkey. His first question was, whether the noble Lord was aware of the existence of a treaty lately entered into between Holland and the United States of America, which he understood was very ominous to the interests of England? Secondly, he wished to know what were the reasons which induced Government, in August last year, to refuse assistance to Turkey, when asked by the Porte? Thirdly, whether the noble Lord was really aware of the offers made to England on that occasion by the Pacha of Egypt, which he understood were really of a very extraordinary character? Fourthly, what was the object of Lord Durham's late mission to Prussia, and with what success it had been attended? And lastly, as Count Orloff was soon afterwards sent over to England, what reception he had met with at his Majesty's Court.
Viscount Palmerstonhoped, that the hon. Gentleman would not consider it any want of courtesy or of respect to him personally if he (Viscount Palmerston) should be obliged from public duty to decline answering in detail some of the questions proposed. With regard to the first question, he had no official knowledge of any treaty lately concluded between Holland and the United States, so that he could give no information upon that subject. With respect to the second point, the reasons which induced Government not to comply with the request made by the Porte for naval assistance, he was happy to correct an error as to dates. He was reported to have said on a late occasion, that that request had been made in the month of August last year—he said, however, in autumn last year. In fact, it was in the month of October that the application was made. Without giving any very detailed explanation of the matter, he would only remind the House, that when we were embarking in naval operations in the North Sea, and on the coast of Holland, and were under the necessity of keeping up another naval force on the coast of Portugal, it would have been impossible to have sent to the Mediterranean such a squadron as would have served the purpose of the Porte, and at the same time have comported with the naval dignity of this country; and as Parliament was not then sitting, Government could not acquiesce in the request made by the Sultan. He could assure the hon. Member, that if any person imagined, that, among other motives which influenced the conduct of his Majesty's Government, there was anything like a threat on the part of Russia, they were entirely mistaken. On the contrary, it was but justice that he should state, that so far from Russia having expressed any jealousy as to Government granting that assistance, the Russian ambassador officially communicated to him (Viscount Palmerston) while the request was still under consideration, that he had learned that such an application had been made, and that, from the interest taken by Russia in the maintenance and preservation of the Turkish Empire, it would afford satisfaction if Ministers could find themselves able to comply with the request. With regard to there having been any communication with the Pacha of Egypt, the hon. Gentleman had not explained to what he alluded, therefore the House would excuse him from saying more than that as it was a war against a Sovereign by a subject, and as

901
that sovereign was in alliance with the King of England, it would have been inconsistent with good faith to have had any communication with the Pacha. With respect to the mission of Lord Durham, great misapprehension had prevailed on that subject. The person who was ambassador at the Court of St. Petersburgh left in consequence of ill health, and it was before another was appointed, that his Lordship went out. He did not go with any specific instructions—he was charged with the general business of England at that Court, and his instructions embraced all points. The manner in which the noble Lord had conducted that mission had obtained for him the unqualified approbation of his colleagues and his Sovereign. His mission was perfectly successful. Count Orloff had not been in this country on a mission—he had been sent to the Hague on one: but to this country he came only in the character of a distinguished traveller.
Subject dropped.