Commons Sitting of 25 May 1837

MINUTES.
Petitions presented. By Sir J. C. HOBHOUSE, from the East-India Company, to be heard by Counsel against the Bill for giving compensation to their excluded Maritime Officers.—By Sir E. WILMOT, from Leeds, in favour of the Summary Convictions Bill.—By several hon. MEMBERS, from various places, for the Ministerial Plan for the abolition of Church-rates.—By W. S. O'BRIEN, from places in Ireland, expressing confidence in his Majesty's present Government, and praying for the abolition of Church-rates m England.—By several hon. MEMBERS, from various places, to support his Majesty's present Government.—By Mr. CURTEIS, from the Medical Practitioners of Sussex, complaining of the present Poor-law.— By Mr. J. MAXWELL, from Weavers of Spitalfields, against so much of the Act of 5 Geo. 4th, cap. 96, as requires that the Magistrate's place of residence be the same as that of the Complainant and Offender.—By Lord SANDON, from Liverpool, for establishing a communication with the East Indies, by way of the Red Sea.

OFFENCES AGAINST THE PEACE (IRELAND).
Mr. Sharman Crawford, on rising to move the repeal of the Act of the 5th and 6th William 4th, c. 48, intituled, "An Act for the Prevention and more speedy Punishment of Offences endangering the public peace in Ireland," said, that he should have greatly rejoiced if the motion he was about to make had emanated from his Majesty's Government; but, as that had not been done, he had felt it his duty to persevere in bringing the subject under the consideration of the House; for this Act was of such a nature, that it could only be justified by a case of extraordinary necessity; and, if that necessity could not be shown to exist, then such an enactment ought not to be allowed a place in the Statute-book. After reciting several clauses of the Act, with a view of showing its extreme stringency, the hon. Member went on to observe, that it might be objected to him that this statute was never acted upon. He would admit that it had never been acted upon by the Government of Lord Mulgrave; but if the Irish people were to depend for their rights and liberties on the forbearance of a government, he thought the case of their rights and liberties would be perilous indeed. Suppose that a government were disposed to act with partiality (he did not care whether towards Catholics or Protestants), and appointed partial sheriffs, who would summon partial juries, how, he asked, was a poor man to

1079
appeal to a partial government for justice against a partial sheriff or partial jury? Then how liable was the poor man to fall into some of the offences created by this statute from his inevitable ignorance alone. He had no watch to tell the precise hour after sunset or before sunrise, and consequently he might, while returning from market, or from watching his sheep, or while abroad on other lawful occasions, become liable to the penalties of this very severe enactment. As he had said, however, he admitted the law might be justified in case of absolute necessity; and he was sorry not to see the hon. and learned Member for Kilkenny in his place, because that hon. and learned Member had stated in a letter addressed to him (Mr. S. Crawford) that he was ready to prove at any proper opportunity this law to be constitutional and just. He (Mr. S. Crawford) had now, for three months, had a notice of this motion on the books, in order to afford the hon. and learned Member for Kilkenny an opportunity of proving this to be the character of the measure. In fact, it was a measure of such a character that he would say, notwithstanding the explanations which they had heard from his Majesty's Government on various occasions respecting the degree of peace that was preserved in Ireland, with a view of evincing the propriety of establishing a system of popular control in Municipal Corporations, that a people among whom such a measure as this was found necessary to keep them in order were not fit to have the exercise of popular control. This Act created three new offences before unknown to the common law, and subjected offenders against it to be tried by a summary process, and not by a jury; and he called, therefore, upon hon. Gentlemen, whether Catholic or Protestant, to guard against an arbitrary law, which it could not be to the advantage of either party to keep on the Statute-book in contradiction to the first principles of liberty. He moved, that the Act of the 5th and 6th William 4th, cap. 48, be repealed.
Viscount Morpethexpressed his regret that his Majesty's Ministers could not reconcile it with their sense of duty to assent to the motion of the hon. Gentleman. The House would recollect, that in 1833 and 1834, the state of Ireland was such that the House felt itself bound to pass two laws of a very stringent and coercive character. He would not now
1080
discuss the propriety of those measures, or inquire as to the sufficiency of the grounds on which they were submitted to Parliament. In the year 1835, his noble Friend (Lord Melbourne), thought he was justified in proposing a measure of a less severe and stringent character, and which, by extending over a larger period of time, would avoid the objection of frequent renewal. His enactment, then, was for a period of five years, and Parliament having taken all the circumstances into consideration, he thought it would be exceedingly inconvenient, instead of waiting for the expiration of that period, to go into the question with a view to the cancelling the arrangement which had been made. He admitted, that his hon. Friend did express his dissent from the measure at the time it was introduced; but he thought he might add, that it passed through both Houses of Parliament, his being almost the only dissentient voice. His hon. Friend told them that the measure had been a dead letter. He was happy to say, that the Government had not been called on to act upon it. Though, however, he trusted he was warranted in thinking that there was nothing in the state of Ireland of a very menacing or dangerous character, he could not flatter himself that things had quite attained to such an extraordinary degree of improvement that, whatever changes could occur, the House would be disposed to dispense with the powers which the Act created. Seeing, then, that no practical inconveniences had resulted from the law, and that it was passed with a perfect understanding as to the period of its duration, he hoped that his hon. Friend would not press his motion, while there were other important practical measures awaiting the consideration of the House.
The House divided:—Ayes 5; Noes 87: Majority 82.

List of the AYES.

Aglionby, H. A.

Vigors, N. A.

Brotherton, J.

TELLERS.

Butler, hon. Pierce

Crawford, W. S.

O'Conor Don

O'Brien, W. S.

List of the NOES.

Agnew, Sir A.

Brownrigg, S.

Arbuthnot, hon. H.

Burrell, Sir C. M.

Baines, E.

Canning, Sir S.

Baring, F. T.

Chichester, J. P. B.

Bonham, R. Francis

Clive, Edw. Bolton

Borthwick, Peter

Clive, hon. R. H.

Bridgman, H.

Curteis, Edward B.

1081

Dillwyn, L. W.

O'Connell, D.

Dundas, J. D.

O'Connell, Morgan

Eastnor, Viscount

Palmer, George

Elwes, J.

Palmerston, Viscount

Estcourt, T. G.

Parrott, J.

Estcourt, T.

Peel, rt. hon. Sir R.

Evans, G.

Perceval, Col.

Fector, J. M.

Pollen, Sir J., bart.

Feilden, William

Price, Sir Robert

Fergus, J.

Rice, rt. hon. T. S.

Forbes, Wm.

Richards, Richard

Forster, C. S.

Rickford, William

French, F.

Rooper, J, Bonfoy

Gisborne, T.

Ross, Charles

Gordon, Robert

Russell, Lord John

Gordon, hon. W.

Scrope, G. P.

Goring, H. D.

Shaw, rt. hon. F.

Goulburn, rt. hon. H.

Sinclair, Sir G.

Goulburn, Sergeant

Smith, R. V.

Graham, Sir J.

Stanley Lord

Grey, Sir Geo., bart.

Stuart, V.

Hamilton, Geo. Alex.

Strickland, Sir G.

Hay, Sir A. Leith

Talbot, J. Hyacinth

Hector, C. J.

Tennent, J. E.

Hinde, J. H.

Thomson, C. P.

Hutt, Wm.

Trevor, hon. A.

Inglis, Sir R. H.

Vere, Sir C. B.

Irton, Samuel

Verney, Sir H., bart.

Knatchbull, Sir E.

Weyland, Major

Labouchere, H.

Williams, W. A.

Lemon, Sir C.

Winnington, H. J.

Lennox, Lord A.

Wrightson, W.

Lincoln, Earl of

Wrottesley, Sir J.

Lowther, J. H.

Young, J.

Mahon, Viscount

Mangles, J.

TELLERS.

Maunsell, T. P.

Parker, John

Morpeth, Viscount

Steuart, R.

Neeld, Joseph

FRENCH COMPENSATION FUND.
Mr. Mackinnonrose to move for "a Select Committee for the purpose of taking into consideration the claims of D'Arcy Talbot, Esq., and other claimants on the French Compensation Fund." The House would not by the result of the decision of such a Committee dip into the public purse, but merely apply certain funds now in the hands of the Government. Those funds had been granted by the Government of France in 1815, and had been vested in Commissioners for distribution to the claimants, among whom was D'Arcy Talbot, Esq., a Roman Catholic Gentleman of the highest respectability. His claim was for 31,000 francs; it was one not to be contradicted, and he had in-formed the first Commissioner, that he should require more time than would elapse before they made their award to produce the documents necessary to satisfy them of his right. The first award had been made in 1820. In 1826 another
1082
allotment was made, and, although the documents were forthcoming, yet the claims of Mr. Talbot were not regarded, because the Commissioners did not consider themselves empowered to investigate any other claims than those preferred after the making of the first award. In 1830, by an Act of Parliament, a new set of Commissioners were appointed, with powers to decide on all proper claims. To this Commission Mr. D'Arcy Talbot submitted his claim, and what did the Commissioners do? They refused to listen to his application, on the ground that there was a distringas laid upon the money which he claimed while in the hands of the French Government, as early as 1793, by a M. Calambourt, and that unless they had some further proof they could not allow the money to be paid until the distringas was removed. "But," said the Commissioners, "we will pay you the interest on the money," and accordingly a sum of 4,000 livres, and another sum of 1,535 livres, were paid to him by the Commissioners, who thereby admitted the claim, and his right to the principal. Now he asked whether this did not form a case to go before a Committee? It must be borne in mind that there were ample funds to defray those claims in the hands of his Majesty's Government, which had been handed over to them by the Commissioners of his Majesty's Woods and Forests, and therefore nothing would be taken out of the pockets of the people. The noble Lord who led the House, and the right hon. Gentleman, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, had supported the claims of Mr. D'Arcy Talbot while they sat on the oppositions de of he House, and he hoped, therefore, that he right hon. Gentleman would now neither "wheel about nor turn about," nor refuse to entertain a claim which he had formerly supported with all that brilliancy of talent for which he was distinguished. The hon. Member concluded by moving for a Select Committee.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, the House could not enter upon the question in its present shape, and even if it were presented in a modified form, there would be an objection to the proposition which, in his judgment, would prove insurmountable. In the first place the hon. Member asserted, that there were sufficient funds to meet those claims in the hands of the Commissioners of Woods and

1083
Forests. Now, first as to the matter of fact, and then as to the matter of argument. There were no such funds in the hands of the Commissioners of Woods and Forests, although there were some years back. He trusted, however, whether the money was sought from the Woods and Forests, or by a vote from that House, the result would be the same, and that an endeavour would be made, both in the one case and the other, to do what was just. Reference had been made to his own opinions on a former occasion, but he trusted that no Member of that House would be induced to give his vote on the opinion of an individual Member of Parliament, delivered too upon a former occasion. He did not contend in 1828 that the House itself ought to take cognizance of this matter, but only that his right hon. Friend should take the claims into consideration, if there was any balance at the Treasury remaining unappropriated. If the House agreed to this motion, they would be opening the whole question of French compensation, and not merely Mr. D'Arcy Talbot, but the Baron de Bode, and all other disappointed claimants, would be let in by the terms of the motion now made, which embraced every possible case that had ever been submitted to the Commissioners, and the actual orders which had been made by the Treasury for the distribution of the fund would be delayed, and parties would be deprived of the result to which they were entitled to look forward. The facts of the case were well known to the House. The Commission which was first appointed closed its labours without exhausting the whole of the funds at its disposal. The Duke of Wellington considered the claims of the parties who professed to have an interest in their distribution, and having done so prepared a Treasury minute, which was now on the table of the House, pointing out the relative classes of claimants, and how they ought to come before the public as participators in the compensation fund; for it was to be observed, that many of these were paid in full, but were only declared entitled to partial payment. Application was made when the Duke of Wellington went out of office to the Government which succeeded, as was always the case, to reverse the decision of its predecessor. He was himself inclined to think, that one part of the Duke of Wellington's minute
1084
might have been otherwise; but Lord Spencer, who considered the case with very great attention, differed from him, and confirmed the Duke of Wellington's minute as being strictly in accordance with the justice of the case. Money, however, still remained to be distributed, and a new Commission was appointed by Lord Grey's Government for that purpose. Documents in proof of his claim were lodged by Mr. D'Arcy Talbot, and that he was entitled to go before the second Commission, and he was heard over and over again, and a decision was given against him. If they entertained individual cases, such as those of the Baron de Bode, or the Troutbeck case, or that of Mr. D'Arcy Talbot, they would expose themselves to all the hazard of a personal canvass and all the other inconveniences which were inseparable from such a step, like a Committee on a private Bill. On these grounds he trusted the House would agree with him in thinking that it was not proper to appoint this Committee. He might add as another ground for not complying with the motion, that the Treasury had been served that very day with notice of a bill being filed in Chancery with respect to these claims. If an appeal lay, let it be made to a court of law, but let the House not be seduced into undertaking functions which they could not properly perform.
Mr. Goulburnsaid, that when the Treasury minute arranged this matter under the Duke of Wellington's Government in 1829, he had thought it all ended, and certainly nothing had since occurred to make it desirable that the matter should be reopened, as all the parties had a right to appeal from the adjudication. He doubted much whether, in point of form, the parties had the power to apply to Parliament on the subject, unless the consent of the Crown were given—for when they applied they did not appeal so much to the justice of Parliament as to the liberality of the Crown. Under all the circumstances, if the matter were pressed to a division, he must oppose the motion.
The House divided: — Ayes 39; Noes 49: Majority 10.

List of the AYES.

Attwood, T.

Bulwer, H. L.

Bonham, R. F.

Chapman, L.

Bridgman, H.

Chichester, A.

Broadwood, H.

Crawford, W. S.

1085

Evans, G.

Palmer, R.

Fector, J. M.

Perceval, Colonel

Forbes, W.

Perceval W. M.

Gore, O.

Richards, J.

Goring, H. D.

Shaw, right hon. F.

Goulburn, Sergeant

Smith, B.

Hamilton, Lord C.

Stuart, Lord D.

Hutt, W.

Talbot, J. H.

Jackson, Sergeant

Trevor, hon. A.

Lennox, Lord A.

Vigors, N. A.

Longfield, R.

Walker, C. A.

Lowther, J. H.

Walter, J.

Mathew, G. B.

Young, J.

O'Brien, W. S.

O'Connell, D.

TELLERS.

O'Connell, M.

Mackinnon, Mr.

O'Conor Don

Lynch, A. H.

Palmer, General

List of the NOES.

Aglionby, H. A.

Palmerston, Viscount

Alston, R.

Parnell, Sir H.

Beckett, Sir J.

Pattison, J.

Bewes,T.

Peel, rt. hon. Sir R.

Brotherton, J.

Pelham, J. C.

Brownrigg, S.

Price, R.

Byng, G.

Pryme, G.

Campbell, Sir J.

Pusey, P.

Crompton, S.

Rice, T. S.

Donkin, Sir R.

Richards, R.

Dundas, hon. T.

Rundle, J.

Fenton, J.

Smith, R. V.

Gisborne, T.

Stanley, E. J.

Goulburn, rt. hon. H.

Stuart, R.

Hector, C. J.

Strickland Sir G.

Hindley, C.

Thompson, C. P.

Jones, T.

Thornley, T.

Irton, S.

Troubridge, E.

Labouchere, H.

Vyvyan, Sir R.

Lemon, Sir C.

Woulfe, Sergeant

Lister, E. C.

Wrightson, W.

Mangles, J.

Young, G. F.

Marsland, H.

Morgan, C. M. R.

TELLERS.

Morpeth, Viscount

Baring, F. T.

Neeld, J.

Parker, J.

OCCUPATION OF CRACOW.
Lord Dudley Stuartsaid, he should be sorry to stand in the way of a question interesting to Irish Members, but having given notice of the present motion so long ago as before Easter, and having been precluded from bringing it forward on a former occasion by the Government having given precedence to Orders of the Day on motion days, he felt bound under those circumstances to proceed. He hoped, before he sat down, to be able to show that the question was important, though it might riot appear to be so to those who had only superficially considered it. He trusted to be able to prove, that the question he was about to submit to the House was a question interesting to the country, to Europe,
1086
to humanity. A question affecting, the character of the present Government, and particularly the conduct of the noble Lord the Secretary for Foreign Affairs. If he should succeed in showing the House that there were Parliamentary grounds for the present motion, he trusted that the House would support him, and not allow the noble Lord to put aside his motion, if he felt so inclined, upon some flimsy excuse, or some unsatisfactory explanation. The motion which he had to submit to the House was for "Copies of any correspondence between this Government and the governments of Russia, Prussia, or Austria, or between this Government and the government of Cracow, relating to the entrance of foreign troops into, the territory of that republic; also, copies of any correspondence between this Government and the before-mentioned governments relating to the appointment of a British Consul at Cracow." This question had been so ably expounded on a former occasion by the hon. Member for Lynn, and the facts were so fresh in the recollection of the House, that he would content him-self with a very brief statement. The State of Cracow, though small in extent and limited in population, was thought of sufficient importance to be made the subject of a separate convention, which was signed by the three Great Powers, Austria, Russia, and Prussia. By the 18th article of the Treaty of Vienna that separate convention was declared to be of the same validity as if it was word for word in the text of that treaty. The 1st article declared Cracow and its territory to be free, independent, and a strictly neutral city under the protection of the three Great Powers. The 6th article declared that the three States were bound to protect the neutrality of Cracow, and that no armed force under any pretence whatsoever should be allowed to enter that territory. To this all the three Powers were parties, and any one of them could not do any thing to violate it without being guilty of a breach of faith to each other, as well as to this country. In 1831 a Russian force entered the State of Cracow, and remained there for two months. When they first entered they promised to pay for the support of the troops (though this was a point in no way affecting the question), and on going away the general refused all payment, stating that it was a just punishment for their disaffection. In 1832 the Three

1087
Powers, without giving England any information of intending such a step, took possession of Cracow with a number of troops. In 1833 the Three Powers took on themselves to abolish the old Constitution and establish a new one. Now, had the old constitution been one of the worst, and the new one one of the best, he contended that the act would be no less a violation of the Treaty of Vienna, and an interference with that independence which they had guaranteed to maintain. But this was not the case. By the old constitution the Representative Assembly had the right to choose its President. The new constitution vested the appointment of the President in the Three Powers. Under the old constitution there were twelve senators; the new reduced them to eight. Nine professorships in the university were abolished, and amongst them that of Polish literature and law, as if they sought to destroy every vestige of Polish nationality. The 1st article of the new constitution declared Cracow a free, independent, and neutral State, under the protection of the Three Powers. One of the excuses for this armed occupation of Cracow was, that it was becoming a focus of disaffected persons, who entered into plots dangerous to the governments of the Three Powers. But what did these plots amount to? Notwithstanding a most rigorous police, inquisitorial proceedings, and numerous arrests, all they had been able to discover amounted to nothing more than this: —It appeared that on the occasion of the illumination in honour of the birthday of the Emperor of Russia a window was broken by some person flinging a chesnut, and a person was found murdered. He certainly believed that there were plots and treachery, but the plots were on the part of these Powers themselves, and the treachery was practised by the paid agents of Russia. He contended that there had been no case whatever to justify the Three Powers in what they had done. One of the pretences was, that seditious books had been found in the hands of some of the students of the university, but on inquiry being made by the government of Cracow, it was discovered that these seditious books had been placed in the hands of the students by the professor of Russian literature, and he still held his place notwithstanding this fact. There was enough to show that Russia, from designs of her own, was, through her agents, exciting disaffection
1088
in order to have a pretence for interference. He admitted that whilst the Three Powers bound themselves to protect the independence of Cracow, that State was bound not to harbour disaffected persons. There was a stipulation that Cracow should not harbour runaways, persons under prosecution, or deserters; and that on such being found on her territory, she was bound to surrender them, under a proper escort, to the guard appointed at the frontier to receive them. He contended that the only ground or pretence was, that Cracow harboured the Polish refugees; but he denied that the Polish refugees came within the description contained in this stipulation. He really thought the conduct of the Three Powers so infamous that, if a conspiracy was hatched at Cracow, and any of the Powers subverted in consequence, and a democratic form of Government substituted in the place of the present form, the Treaty of Vienna would fully warrant such conduct. He had argued the case as if Cracow had refused to comply with the wishes of the Three Powers. But no refusal had been made. An order was sent to have the political refugees dismissed from the territory, and 300 were immediately desired to leave the city. One would have supposed that so little opposition, or, to speak more correctly, so much resignation, would have purchased some immunity from the outrageous demands of the Three Powers. But no such result had taken place. He would read to the House, on this point, a letter which had appeared in the Foreign Quarterly Review for January last, from the President of Cracow to Prince Metternich. It bore the date of the 25th of February, 1836. The noble Lord read the letter accordingly, which he said he had good reason to know was authentic.
House counted out.