Commons Sitting of 22 February 1838

MINUTES.
Petitions presented. By Lord JERMYN, from forty Clergymen of the Established Church, by Mr. DUGDALE, Mr. WILSON PATTEN, and by Sir R. INGLIS, from Shrewsbury, and other places, against the abolition of the See of Sodor and Man.—By Mr. HANDLEY, from the Postmasters on the great northern road, praying for a reduction of the Post-horse duty.—By Mr. GRIMSDITCH, from Macclesfield, by Mr. TURNER, by Lord F. EGERTON, and by Mr. EGERTON, from Cheshire, against the New Poor-law.—By Sir G. STRICKLAND, from Bradford, by Mr. G. WOOD, by Mr. ALSTON, by Mr. W. A. WILLIAMS,
8
from various places, and by Lord SANDON, from Liverpool, for the abolition of Negro Apprenticeship.—By Mr. J. O'CONNELL, from places in Kerry, against several clauses of the Irish Poor-law Bill.—By Mr. ELLICE, from places in Fifeshire, against any further grant of money to the Church of Scotland.—By Mr. WILBERFORCE, from Hull for a reduction of the duty on Marine Insurances.

MR. D'ARCY TALBOT.
Mr. Mackinnonrose to bring forward the motion of which he had given notice relative to the claims of Mr. D'Arcy Talbot on the French Compensation Fund. This was by no means a question of a political nature, and the only object he had in view in bringing it forward was to obtain justice for the individual in question. As several hon. Members now present were not in the House when he brought the subject forward last Session, he should endeavour, in a few words, to state the claims which Mr. D'Arcy Talbot had put upon the consideration of the House. In 1793, the French Government had confiscated all the British property in France, and in 1815, in pursuance of a treaty, it was stipulated that the claims of British subjects which could be substantiated, should be compensated. For that purpose a certain number of commissioners were named in Paris and London, to take the matter into consideration, and at a subsequent period it was deemed advisable that a sum of money should be granted for the purpose of liquidating these claims. In consequence of circumstances, which it was unnecessary now to refer to, Mr. Talbot was unable to bring forward evidence in support of his claims before the commissioners. At a subsequent period, another board of commissioners was appointed to take into consideration all the claims which, upon technical objections, had not been considered by the former board. To these commissioners Mr. Talbot applied, and he was told they would not take his claim into consideration, unless he signed an agreement to the effect that he would be satisfied with their award. At first he declined acceding to this proposal, but being driven by the exigencies of the case, he was obliged to accede to their demands, and sign the paper. When they got his signature they pretended to take his case into consideration, and paid to Mr. Talbot, not the principal of the amount to which he was entitled, but simply the interest. Now, he (Mr. Mackinnon) would submit to the House, that if Mr. Talbot was entitled to the interest of the demand, he

9
was to the principal also; and he hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would allow it to go before a Committee of the House. Independent of these considerations, he begged to recal to the attention of the House, that the right hon. Gentleman, when in Opposition, entertained the opinion which he now held, and distinctly gave to the House his advice, that the claims should be admitted. The claims of Mr. Talbot were rejected on mere technical grounds. The commissioners said they could not entertain them, because his application was made too late. That would have been a very good answer to the claims had there been none of the money received from the French Government remaining unappropriated. But there was a sum of between 200,000 l. and 300,000 l. in the hands of the Treasury, which, if the House did not interfere, would be appropriated in some other way. ["Hear, hear!" from the Chancellor of the Exchequer.] He was glad to hear the cheer of the right hon. Gentleman, and he trusted that it was an augury that he would grant the Committee which he sought. As this was the last time this subject would be brought before the House by him, it was his intention to take the sense of the House upon the motion he should make. What would be thought of a private individual in whose hands a sum of money had been placed for the purpose of paying off certain debts, if that individual pleaded the statute of limitations as a bar to claim, and afterwards pocketed the money? Such, however, had been the conduct of the Government, because there were between 200,000 l. and 300,000 l. of that sum remaining unappropriated. He hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would allow this claim to come under the consideration of a Committee of the House, because, in point of justice, and in point of honourable feeling towards those who had been unjustly deprived of their rights, it was such a claim as the House ought to entertain. The hon. Member then moved, that a Select Committee be appointed for the purpose of taking into consideration the claims of Mr. D'Arcy Talbot on the French Compensation Fund.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, that he had to set the House right upon some points in respect to which the hon. Gentleman opposite was incorrect or had been misinformed. He must, however,
10
first remark, that although it was stated that this claim was now urged, for the last time, he felt some apprehension that even if the hon. Member should be persuaded by him to abandon his motion, or if he should be overpowered by the decision of the House, the case of Mr. D'Arcy Talbot would still re-appear year after year, would be urged with the same arguments as now, would receive the same reply, and meet with the same decision. But the hon. Gentleman opposite was entirely in error with respect to the main point upon which he relied. The hon. Member had informed the House that there was a balance of between 200,000 l. and 300,000 l. of the funds to meet these claims still remaining unappropriated, and which might be carried by the Treasury to its own use, if it so thought fit. Now, this was the very contrary of the facts of the case: there was not a single farthing of that sum either in the hands of the Treasury, or which could be appropriated by the Treasury. Last year the hon. Member had said the balance was in the hands of the Woods and Forests; but he assured the hon. Member and the House that it was neither in the hands of the Treasury nor the Woods and Forests. In fact no such balance existed. To both these suggestions it was in his power to give the most complete contradiction. The Mover may have been misled by a former state of facts. There had been a balance of the French indemnity fund applied to the building of the Royal Palace—an appropriation which, during the administration of the Earl of Liverpool, the Treasury had by law the power to make. That appropriation had, however, been afterwards held to be objectionable, and that balance was repaid with interest by the Woods and Forests, and under the sanction of the Government of the Duke of Wellington, and afterwards of Lord Spencer, it was appropriated by a judicial commission appointed for the purpose of investigating and judicially to determine these claims, and the manner in which the fund should be disposed of. The Treasury minute to that effect of the Duke of Wellington was followed and acquiesced in by Lord Spencer, and after the money had been repaid by the Woods and Forests a new commission was appointed, and parties who had only an equitable, and not a strict legal, claim were admitted before this tribunal, which was in the nature of a board of reference, to make an award upon the claims of those parties. In order to facili-

11
tate the adjudication, two lawyers of great eminence were appointed, together with a mercantile gentleman of the first respectability and conversant with accounts, and it was directed by the Treasury that all the parties before they went before the tribunal, so constituted, should take the same course which was followed by every man on submitting to a reference, namely, that they should sign a deed of submission to abide by the award. Against that course no complaint was made by the claimants, and every one of them, Mr. D'Arcy Talbot included, signed the instrument of submission, which he would now read: "I hereby undertake to abide by any decision of the commissioners appointed by the Treasury minute of the 15th of March, 1833, and to consider such decision as final and conclusive." Now, this under-taking had been signed by Mr. D'Arcy Talbot; and if this circumstance had been originally communicated by Mr. Talbot to the hon. Member opposite, he thought he had understood that hon. Gentleman to have stated that his motion would not have been brought forward last year. Why, then, should it be brought forward now? That fact had been kept back, because the claimant must have felt that no hon. Member would undertake to controvert so conclusive an answer to a motion for a Committee of Inquiry, but that all must admit that the declaration was a bar to the claim. With regard to the funds yet unappropriated, there were still claimants to whom the objection he had urged against Mr. D'Arcy Talbot did not apply, and their claims were sufficient to absorb the whole of these funds; he was sure the House would not consent that those funds should be diminished by the admission of a claim which had already been negatived. On these grounds he trusted, if the hon. Member did not withdraw his motion, that the House would feel no difficulty in meeting it with a negative.
Mr. Praedsaid, that the right hon. Gentleman, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, had offered no explanation of the extraordinary decision of the commissioners, that Mr. D'Arcy Talbot was entitled to the interest upon the amount of his claim, but not the principal. The money had been paid by the French Government to meet these claims, and, when the party now before the House had been first heard, it was under circumstances which made it impossible for him to bring forward that evidence upon which he now
12
relied. He admitted that with regard to the second inquiry into Mr. D'Arcy Talbot's claim, the right hon. Gentleman opposite had given a strong answer to the motion, if the commissioners had authority to require the deed of submission. He should like to know under what circumstances that deed had been signed. If it was an agreement which the commissioners had no authority to demand, he should be inclined to support the present motion.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerreplied, that the agreement was not confined to the petitioner now before the House, but was required to be signed by every one of the claimants; and with regard to the authority of the commissioners in that respect, it was expressly given to them by the Treasury Minister.
The House divided:—Ayes 52; Noes 101: Majority 49.

List of the AYES.

Alsager, Captain

Litton, E.

Archbold, R.

Lockhart, A. M.

Bagge, W.

Lowther, J. H.

Barry, G S.

Maher, J.

Bateman, J.

Maxwell, H.

Bellew, R. M.

Neeld, J.

Bodkin, J. J.

O'Brien, W. S.

Borthwick, P.

O'Connell, D.

Broadwood, H.

Palmer, G.

Brodie, W. B.

Plumptre, J. P.

Browne, R. D.

Power, J.

Bruges, W. H. L.

Praed, W. M

Bryan, G.

Round, C. G.

Butler, hon. Colonel

Round, J.

Conolly, E.

Shaw, right hon. F.

Darby, G.

Smith, A.

D'Israeli, B.

Vigors, N. A.

Douglas, Sir C. E.

Walker, C. A.

Duncombe, hon. W.

Warburton, H.

Ellis, J.

White, S.

Fort, J.

Wyse, T.

Gore, O. J. R.

Yates, J. A.

Grattan, J.

Young, J.

Hayes, Sir E.

TELLERS.

Jackson, Sergeant

Mackinnon, W.

Law, hon. C. E.

O'Connell, M. J.

List of the NOES.

Aglionby, H. A.

Blake, W. J.

Aglionby, Major

Blennerhassett, A.

Ainsworth, P.

Briscoe, J. I.

Bailey, J., jun.

Broadley, H.

Baines, E.

Brocklehurst, J.

Baring, H. B.

Brotherton, J.

Barnard, E. G.

Brownrigg, S.

Barrington, Viscount

Buller, Sir J. Y.

Bentinck, Lord G.

Busfield, W.

Bethell, R.

Byng, rt. hon. G.

Blackstone, W. S.

Carnac, Sir J. R.

13

Cavendish, hon. C.

Labouchere, rt. hn. H.

Chetwynd, Major

Lennox, Lord G.

Collier, J.

Lister, E. C.

Dalmeny, Lord

Lygon, hon. General

Dalrymple, Sir A.

Morpeth, Visct.

Davies, Colonel

O'Ferral, R. M.

Dick, Q.

Palmerston, Viscount

Divett, E.

Parker, J,

Dowdeswell, W.

Parnell, Sir H.

Duckworth, S.

Pattison, J.

Duke, Sir J.

Peel, right hon. Sir R.

Duncombe, hon. A.

Poulter, J. S.

Dundas, C. W. D.

Price, Sir R.

Dundas, hon. J. C.

Rice, right hon. T. S.

Dundas, hon. T.

Rich, H.

Egerton, W. T.

Richards, R.

Evans, Colonel

Rolfe, Sir R. M.

Farnham, E. B.

Russell, Lord J.

Fazakerley, J. N.

Smith, R. V.

Fergusson, rt. hon. C.

Somers, J. P.

Gaskell, James Milnes

Stanley, E. J.

Goddard, A.

Stanley, W. O.

Goring, H. D.

Strickland, Sir G.

Goulburn, rt. hon. H.

Surrey, Earl of

Grimsditch, T.

Tancred, H. W.

Handley, H.

Thompson, Alderman

Hawkins, J. H.

Thornley, T.

Hayter, W. G.

Troubridge, Sir E. T.

Heathcote, J.

Turner, E.

Hinde, J.

Tyrrel, Sir J. T.

Hodgson, R.

Vere, Sir C. B.

Horsman, E.

Verney, Sir H.

Howick, Viscount

Vivian, R. H.

Hughes, W. B.

Vivian, Sir R. H.

Humphery, J.

Wall, C. B.

Hurt, F.

White, A.

Inglis, Sir R. H.

Williams, W. A.

Irton, S.

Wilshere, W.

James, W.

Johnstone, H.

TELLERS.

Johnson, General

Steuart, R.

Jones, J.

Wood, C.

SALMON FISHERIES (IRELAND).
Colonel Conollyrose to move for leave to bring in a Bill for the protection of the Salmon Fisheries in Ireland: it had been adopted by the unanimous advice and suggestion of the farmers and proprietors of the fisheries, who had met in Dublin on the subject, and who deplored the insufficient protection furnished by the present system. This insufficiency arose from the 17th clause of the Act 4 George 4th, which prohibited the interference of the police in all matters relating to the fisheries. The object of his Bill was to enable the police to take into custody all the persons who were fined for offences against the fisheries, and to detain them in custody till the fines were paid. He believed he did not mistake the law when he said, that in England and in Scotland no man was released from custody till his fine was
14
paid. The object of the second clause was to prevent the destruction of the mouths of the rivers before they came within the boundaries of the several properties enjoying the right of fishing by charter or otherwise. The benefit which would result from this change was manifest, for it was well known that many depredations were committed on the north and west coasts of Ireland, and that various injuries had been inflicted on the property there. Individually, as he was, largely concerned in fisheries which had been injured to a great extent, he was much interested in the fate of the Bill, of which he trusted that he had sufficiently established the necessity to obtain the leave of the House for its introduction.
Viscount Morpethwould not offer any opposition to the motion. Some legislation was required for the Scotch fisheries, and it was but reasonable that the Irish salmon fisheries should receive equal consideration. He was glad to perceive, that the hon. Member did not propose to repeal the provision which prevented the police from acting as gamekeepers or fishkeepers, or servants to the proprietors, and that it only provided, that offenders should be kept in custody after conviction. The whole question of maritime aggression was a subject of considerable difficulty: he would not then pronounce an opinion upon it, but the question might be brought under the consideration of the House when the Bill was in Committee, and he should be happy to hear what was the opinion of the House and of the country upon it.
Mr. W. Rochethought, that this was a most important measure for Ireland, and he was glad that it had been brought forward by the hon. Member.
Mr. O'Connellhad been instructed by his constituents to watch only one part of the measure, that part which affected the manufacturing interests of Dublin, connected especially with the banks of the Liffey. With this exception he supported the Bill.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerwould throw no difficulty in the way of the hon. Member, and he was exceedingly glad to find the subject brought forward. Not only was it necessary to remedy some of the evils at the upper part of the rivers, but also the destruction at their mouths. Like the hon. Member he was personally interested in the question, and

15
as valuable evidence on the subject had been collected by the Committee which had sat upon the subject, he would suggest the propriety of referring that Bill to a private Committee. The question for the House was, how they could ensure for the public the largest supply of fish.
Leave given.

THE BARON DE BODE.
Mr. Warburtonrose to call the attention of the House to the case of the Baron de Bode. A Committee of the House was appointed in 1834 to take the case of the claimant into consideration, but as it was necessary to send to France for further evidence, the session terminated before the inquiry was completed. The Committee consequently were not enabled to make any report, but they laid the evidence which they had taken before the House, accompanied by a recommendation that the Committee should be revived early in the next session. That recommendation, however, had never been acted upon, and it was his intention to move that a Select Committee be appointed for the purpose of reconsidering this question. In consequence of the recommendation of the Committee, a sum had been expended by the unfortunate claimant of not much less than 3,000 l. in supplying defects in the evidence originally laid before that tribunal, and the question was, whether the House would not think it proper, after this expense had been incurred in compliance with its own directions, to reappoint a Committee to proceed with the inquiry, and afterwards pronounce an opinion upon the whole case. The Baron de Bode was the son of a German nobleman, who was the commander of a regiment of cavalry in the service of France, and who in the year 1777 married a Staffordshire lady. Their eldest son, the present claimant, was born in England, and was a British subject. In 1786 his father invested the greater part of the fortune which he received with the English lady whom he married, in a male fief in Alsace, held under the Elector of Cologne. The Elector could present to these fiefs, but he could not possess them himself. In the year 1648 a surrender was made to France of Alsace, on condition that France should have the superiority, but that all the different feudal tenures which existed under the German dominion should remain as they stood before the surrender.
16
In case of the failure of male descent, the fiefs escheated to the Elector of Cologne, as seigneur suzerain, and he was to exercise his privilege of presenting persons to those fiefs. This was the nature of the property which the father of the present claimant obtained in Alsace in the year 1786. Shortly afterwards the troubles of the French revolution broke out. In 1791 the father of the present Baron de Bode, in consequence of the decrees of the French Convention abolishing feudal tenures, did what many proprietors of France did at that time—he endeavoured to evade the effect of the decrees of the Convention by making a deed of gift to his next male heir. This cession was made in the presence of a number of the vassals in the baronial court, in the most formal manner in which such a cession could be made, and the particulars of the surrender might be found in the reports of the Commissioners of Awards in Liquidation of French Claims, which were laid before the Committee of which Mr. Hill was chairman. In the year 1793 the Baron de Bode's father, in consequence of the troubled state of Alsace, thought it necessary to emigrate with all his family. Now, according to the decrees of the Convention, at that time a change of domicile was evidence on which confiscation took place. For this purpose nothing more was necessary than to prove that the proprietor had quitted his ordinary domicile. That fact established, his property was immediately confiscated to the use of the state. The baron's father died in Russia in the year 1797; and the present claimant became by that circumstance the head of the family. He held the command of a Russian regiment at the period when the Allied forces assembled at Paris in 1815. A convention was about that period entered into by the English and French Governments for the benefit of all British subjects whose property had been unduly confiscated in France after the 1st of January, 1793. Under this convention it was directed that the claims of all British subjects for property so confiscated should be proved before the 20th of February; and on the 9th of that same month of February the baron sent in his claim to the Duke de Richelieu, then the head of the Department of Foreign Affairs in France, through the Russian Ambassador, Count Pozzo di Borgo. The convention had not specified to whom the proof of the claim should be sent in, It

17
was quite true that the baron's specification of his claim did not reach the Commissioners until the 22d of February. But it was not necessary now to raise the debated question whether it was sent in in time or not because a case had been some years ago drawn up and submitted to the Judge Advocate, Sir Christopher Robinson, and to the then Attorney-General, upon which they decided that, giving a liberal construction to the terms of the convention, as the baron's claim had been delivered into the hands of the French Minister for Foreign Affairs before the expiration of the term prescribed, he ought fairly to be considered as having complied with the terms of the convention. The result of this opinion was, that the Commissioners acted with reference to the claim as though it had been put in in due time. Another Convention subsequently took place in the year 1818, the result of which was the establishment of a board of Commissioners, composed exclusively of British subjects, whose functions were authorised by act of Parliament, and a sum amounting to 6,500,000f. was placed at their disposal. The first question raised before this board of Commissioners with reference to the baron's claim was, whether he was properly speaking a British subject or not. The Duke de Richelieu, who raised this question, contended under the Roman law, as interpreted by modern civilians, that the Baron's father only could be considered a British subject, and the Baron himself must be considered a subject of France. Another question was raised, whether Alsace formed part of the French dominions before the year 1793. It was, however, finally determined that the Baron's claims should be considered capable of adjudication by the British Board of Commissioners. It was not, however, until the 3rd of July, 1821, that the Baron received any official communication from the Commissioners upon the subject of fixing a period for bringing forward the evidence in support of his claim; nor was it until the 23rd of August in the same year that he received any regular communication from the Commissioners as to the nature of the proof; which would be required. The claim having been at last taken into consideration, after some preliminary discussion the Commissioners laid down the principle that no proof would avail before then unless it established that the confiscation
18
was of British property, and that it was expressly confiscated as such. Now, no decision could be more unjust than this. For a very large number of the claims which were covered by the terms of the Convention were shut out by this decision; it not having been until the 10th of October, 1793, that any confiscation took place of British property, expressly as such. According, therefore, to this interpretation of the Commissioners, if any property were confiscated between the 1st of January, 1793, and the 10th of October in that year, the complainant could have no relief. The principle upon which the Privy Council had uniformly acted, was, that if any property were proved to have been confiscated after the 1st of January, 1793, that such property belonged to a British subject, and that it was taken possession of by the French Government, the claim for such property should be held good. A case, perfectly in point, was that of Fanning, or Devereux. In this case, the parties had purchased property in France, had abandoned it, and emigrated from that country in 1793. The Commissioners decided that the property was not confiscated, expressly on the ground of the property belonging to a British subject. But upon appeal before the Privy Council, it was contended that the confiscation took place in consequence of the party having emigrated; and the award of the Commissioners was overruled by the Privy Council. A communication subsequently took place between the Baron's agent, Mr. Basset, and the Commissioners, in which the agent was informed, that "if it could be clearly proved that the Baron's property was confiscated as having been that of a British subject, his claim might, under certain circumstances, be taken into consideration." The Baron was reduced to extreme penury by the expenses attendant on the prosecution of his claim, and at last got some person to advance him money upon the liberal terms that 5 per cent. should be paid to the party out of the whole sum which the Baron might subsequently recover. A short time before the Commissioners signed their ultimate award against the Baron's claim, an individual named Richmond entered into a clandestine communication with them, the consequence of which was, that the Commissioners acted upon certain information so clandestinely conveyed to them, and in-

19
cluded it in their award, reciting in that award a deed, the existence of which was intimated to them by this Mr. Richmond, but of which circumstance they gave no notification whatever to the Baron. Now, how exceedingly unjust was this! The Baron was deprived of all opportunity of rebutting any portion of this evidence which might make against his claim. But, what was still more incredible, there was a passage in the deed which was recited at length, although it was formerly excepted in the deed itself, with his signature to that effect. The award quoted this excepted passage, as if it had been contained in the actual deed, and as if the Baron had attached his signature to it. It was really difficult to find language to characterise such a proceeding. Here they had had the official copy of the deed laid before them, and the signature of the Baron and the witnesses recited at full length in the excepted passage. The award was made on the 26th of April, and in July, 1823, the Baron appealed to the Privy Council, but was unable, owing to the strictness of the rules by which, under the Act of Parliament, the Privy Council was guided, to produce any additional proof beyond that upon which the award had been made. After signing the award, the Commissioners had extended the period beyond a year, upon the ground that the parties were searching for further proofs, and were likely to obtain them. No additional facility, however, was given by the Commissioners to the Baron to bring forward those proofs, as a document, a most extraordinary document, to which he was about to advert, would show. From the minutes taken before the Committee, the House would see that there were certain documents which the Committee had sent for, but could not obtain. They were three in number, but the person in whose custody the papers were, contended that they were private and not public documents, belonging to the official papers relating to those claims. All those papers had been sealed with the seal of the Commissioners, and amongst them were the three documents to which he referred. The chairman of the Committee, Mr. Hill, applied to Mr. Bale, who had the custody of the papers, when it was found that the seal of the Commissioners had been broken, and that those three documents had been taken out, because, as the parties were informed, they were
20
private. They were delivered by Mr. Bale to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who, upon being asked what became of them, stated that he had forwarded them to Sir W. Horne. Upon inquiry, however, it appeared that Sir W. Horne had them not; that they were, in fact, at the office of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but that they could not be found. The answer given on the occasion was, that they might be there, and that search would be made for them. He thought he had very successfully traced them to the Chancellor of the Exchequer; and having been amongst the official papers of the Commissioners, they ought still to be considered official. One of the documents was without signature, but in the handwriting of one of the Commissioners' clerks, and the nature of it was this:—It was a minute of a memorial addressed by the Commissioners to the Privy Council after the award and before the Privy Council had given its judgment, stating that the Baron de Bode's claim, against which they had made an award of rejection, was one of great magnitude; that they understood the Baron could not procure a solicitor to prosecute his case; that they had been informed that he could not procure the necessary security for carrying it on; that he had appealed, and that therefore they begged their Lordships to appoint as early a day as possible for the hearing of the appeal. Now, he had very good reason to believe that that was the substance of one of those documents so taken away, and which was among the official papers appertaining to this claim, and bearing the seal of the Commissioners. He could, therefore, only say, that he considered it a tampering with justice. He might be asked, how was the Baron thereby injured? Why, thus: in many other cases, after the signing of the award by the Commissioners, a long interval had been allowed to the parties to procure additional evidence. If, therefore, they hurried on the decision of the Privy Council, it was quite clear that the Baron must be injured by losing the opportunity allowed to others for obtaining additional evidence. He knew that, under the Act of Parliament, there was a limited time; but then he could not inform the House of the date of those communications; and all he could say was, that they were amongst the official papers.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerbegged

21
to say, that he was not Chancellor of the Exchequer at the time, but that, nevertheless, the transaction referred to him, he being the Secretary to the Treasury. The statement of the hon. Gentleman would seem to apply to Lord Spencer, his predecessor, when, in point of fact, it applied to himself.
Mr. Warburtondid not state any thing affecting the character of the Gentleman who did not produce the documents referred to; the answer given was most likely the fact—viz., that they could not be found. The Commissioners sent the award to the Privy Council, and the Privy Council confirmed it, but on totally different grounds from those upon which the award had been made. The Commissioners in their award expressed a doubt that the cession made by the Baron's father of his property in 1791 had taken place, while the Privy Council in their award admitted the fact, but drew this inference from it, that it was a collusive transaction between father and son, with a view to impose on the French Government. They, therefore, admitted the fact of the cession having been made, which the Commissioners disputed. The Privy Council having also rejected this unfortunate nobleman's claims, he again petitioned them to be heard in 1826, but they stated that under the act they had no power to re-open the case. In the same year, there were several petitions presented to that House on the subject. Petitions were also presented in 1827 by Mr. Littleton, in 1828 by Lord Stanley, upon which occasion a long debate ensued, during which the Baron's claims were supported by very high authorities; in 1833 by Mr. Hill, for a Committee, but without effect; and in 1834 by the same Gentleman, when he was successful. In 1835, Mr. Gisborne made a motion for a revival of the Committee, but unsuccessfully. Now it was said, that the award had been on the grounds upon which the Baron supported his claim; that claim rested upon the fourth additional article of the treaty of 1814, the only conditions to be found in which were, that the claimant must have been a subject of his Britannic Majesty, and that the property for which he sought value must have been unduly confiscated by France subsequent to the 1st of January, 1793. They then came to the Convention of 1815. In the fifth of the seven articles then made, re-
22
lating to different descriptions of property, it was stated, that in order to determine the capital due upon immoveable property belonging to British subjects, their heirs or assigns, which had been confiscated, proof should be had that it was the property of a British subject at the time of confiscation, and that the person now claiming was a British subject. It was, therefore, important for the Baron, if he claimed under the cession made to him by his father, to prove that he himself had been the lawful possessor of the property at the time of confiscation. The article alluded to went on to show what should be the proofs, that the deed of purchase should be produced, &c., but that in default of the required proofs in writing, the Commissioners should, in consequence of the circumstances attending the revolution, receive such other proofs in lieu thereof as they might deem sufficient. Under the 5th article it was necessary that the Baron should prove, that the cession made by his father in 1791 actually did take place. Previous to bringing forward his claim, he submitted the case to the Commissioners, and acting upon their suggestions as to the required proofs, he described his claim as being a German male fief. That point had been adjudicated upon, and although he (Mr. Warburton) had no doubt that the cession did take place, yet inasmuch as that was the branch of the case to which the Commissioners had paid exclusive attention, and the only point adverted to before the Privy Council, he would advise the Baron not to lay so much stress upon it, as upon the other grounds upon which he founded his claim, and which had been altogether lost sight of both by the Commissioners and the Privy Council. The authorities of revolutionary France had assumed the power of doing away with the rights of this unfortunate nobleman, but from the documents in the possession of the Commissioners and from the evidence laid before the House, it must be as clear as proof could make it, that such invasion of his rights could not have been committed without an infraction of the treaty of Westphalia. The right to, and at one time the possession of, male fiefs in Alsace, did not depend upon any act of revolutionary France; unless the proceedings of the National Convention were held to be of sufficient authority to override the express stipulations of a treaty,

23
the title of Baron de Bode could not be impeached. This principle was so fully recognised, that the French government undertook, that means for making pecuniary indemnity should be reserved as to all Alsatian estates. Now, this ground was never taken up on behalf of the Baron before the Commissioners. Here was an attempt to get municipal law to override a national compact, and this, as he previously said, was ground never taken up before the Commissioners. The Commissioners put the Baron and his advisers upon a false scent; they called on him to show, that as a British subject his property had been confiscated at a time when he had reason to expect to be required to show, that the property had belonged to his father, and that he had been deprived of it as an emigrant. Upon the various grounds, then, that he had stated, he took upon himself to say that the Baron de Bode had an undoubted right to a re-hearing before a competent tribunal—before a Committee of that House—the more especially as the last Committee which considered his case had recommended a re-hearing. If, however, the Government held out any prospect that before any legal, and, at the same time impartial, tribunal, the matter could get a fair hearing, he thought that the Baron would have no objection to go before any such tribunal, at least he (Mr. Warburton) should advise him not to reject such an offer. He should say, let the matter go before any judge of eminence. The Treasury had an absolute control over the surplus of that fund, and there could be no doubt that the Treasury could appoint a competent person, a man of legal mind, to investigate the whole case; and the Baron most probably would—and as it appeared to him, certainly ought to—enter previously into an undertaking to abide by that decision, whatever it might be. He was aware that the question might be asked, where is the money to come from? Many hon. Members present must recollect a gentleman of the name of Abbott, who had often been called before Committees to give his opinion on matters of complex accounts. That gentleman had gone over the accounts of the Commissioners, in which he found many unexplained and contradictory statements, and it was the opinion of that very eminent accountant, that a surplus of 500,000 l. or 600,000 l.
24
more might be found than had yet been accounted for. After such an opinion, he ventured to affirm, that a full inquiry ought to take place by a party competent to examine all the entries, both in France and in this country. On a former occasion the Chancellor of the Exchequer endeavoured to raise up the ghosts of other claimants, in order to frighten away the Baron; but he hoped, notwithstanding the technical difficulties which at various times had been raised, it would yet be considered that there was a strong moral proof in his favour, and that he was entitled to justice. He considered the amount of the claim altogether foreign to the subject under consideration; but looking to the calculations which had been made by Mr. Finlaison, one of the highest authorities on such a point, he might state that the reversionary interest was computed at about 300,000 l. But that was a matter of detail for future consideration, if the Baron de Bode should ultimately succeed in establishing his claim. For the present, he (Mr. Warburton) contented himself with moving that a Select Committee be appointed for the purpose of further inquiry into the claim of the Baron de Bode.
Mr. Richrose to address the House with considerable diffidence, but he trusted the House would extend its indulgence towards one who addressed them for the first time. He was induced to take a part in the debate on this subject from the deep interest which he took in the question, but he had no connexion with the Commission whose conduct had been found fault with by the hon. Gentleman, nor had he any connexion whatever with Baron de Bode. Since the year 1833, 250 persons had proved their claims for compensation, and had not yet received the sums awarded them; and in addition to these, there were 530 other claims, some of which went back to 1820; and if the present motion were acceded to, all these would still be kept out of their just dues. He would not attempt to follow the hon. Gentleman through the long history of the case which he had detailed to the House. With a major part of it, he was inclined to agree as to the historical facts, subject, however, to one or two remarks, which he had to make. In the first place, with reference to the harshness with which the hon. Gentleman

25
had said the Commissioners treated the Baron de Bode while prosecuting his claim, and the severe limitation with which it was asserted they had interpreted the confiscatory decrees, and which induced the agent of the Baron de Bode to throw up his case in despair, he would beg the hon. Member for Bridport to look again at the identical page he had quoted a passage from, where he would find it recorded that the very next day the agent had it explained to him, that, the limitation stated by the Commissioners, was much wider than at first appeared to be the case, and that if he were prepared to show that the property was British, the Commissioners would be open to receive the documents in proof of it; but the agent would not receive the explanation, and threw up the case the same day. Another statement of the hon. Gentleman was refuted by the fact, that though the award of the Commissioners was made on the 1st of April, 1822, the appeal to the Privy Council was not made till fifteen months afterwards. He would now revert to the more general question, had or had net the Baron de Bode a right to a share of the indemnity? What were the brief facts of the case? The Baron de Bode claimed compensation in respect of an estate in Alsace, which was confiscated in the year 1793, and which he stated to have either belonged to himself personally at the time, or to have since become legally vested in him. The objections to the claim were, first, that the Baron was not such an Englishman as the convention contemplated; secondly, that he had never been in possession of the property; and thirdly, that the reversionary right which he set up had ceased to exist four years before the act under which he now claimed. The hon. Gentleman had passed rather glibly over the question of the nationality of the Baron de Bode. No doubt the Baron was born in this country, and of an English mother, but he was no further an Englishman. He was removed to France when quite a child, and had never fulfilled any of the duties of an Englishman. His father was a foreigner, a German or a Frenchman; in fact, a Frenchman by birth, a Frenchman by naturalisation, who bought property in France and lived on it. He was also high in the military service of France, and did not quit that country till the revolution, in consequence of which event he thought
26
fit to emigrate in the year 1793, and, as an emigrant, his property was confiscated by the supreme authorities. He then proceeded to Russia, and subsequently died there. His son, the present Baron, entered the service of Russia, and continued in that country till 1816, when the first act he performed as an Englishman, was to claim, through the Russian ambassador, compensation for wrongs done him as an English subject, though it was a well-understood principle that none ought to enjoy the rights of citizenship who had not performed its duties. What was the Baron's own view of his nationality? Before he applied to this country for compensation as an English subject, the Baron had applied to the French compensation commissioners for compensation as a French emigrant. This claim he continued to prosecute, and, in 1831, he succeeded in obtaining an award from the French commissioners on this ground, not in his own favour solely, which would have borne out his assertion that he inherited the property under the feudal tenure, but on the contrary, the French commissioners gave their award not in his favour solely, but in favour of the existing representatives of the property in question. Was the Baron, then, to be allowed two strings to his bow? Was he to have compensation both as a French subject and an English subject? But the English Commissioners considered that the Baron did not fulfil that character of an Englishman which the convention contemplated, under which convention they were bound to distribute the indemnity given by France. The claim of the Baron here was supported by no particle of evidence whatever. There was, certainly, the evidence of a certain number of persons, who stated that they recollected the Baron de Bode's father ceding the property in question to his son; but such a vast property was not ordinarily passed away without something like documentary forms, and no documents of the sort were to be found either in the archives at Paris, or Strasburg, or any where else. But it was needless to dwell on this point, as it had been given up by the Baron de Bode's friends themselves. Then came the question as to the Baron's vested right. The National Assembly of France, in 1789, abolished all feudal rights and primogeniture, and the decree applied equally to Alsace. This fact the hon. Member had attempted to meet, by quot-

27
ing the treaty of Westphalia, which he rightly stated stipulated for the reservation of certain feudal rights held by the Alsatian nobility, but the last clause was a saving clause in assertion of the sovereign power of France over Alsace; and there was no meaning in ceding the sovereign power to France, if it did not give that sovereign power the right of making what laws it deemed proper for its subjects, and these laws it became the duty of the subjects to observe. Whether the decree of the National Assembly was a wise one was not the present question. It was clear that as regarded the subjects of France it was a legal one. It might have been an infringement of the treaty, but this was a question solely between the high contracting parties and not one for a subject to decide. Deputies from the Alsatian nobility were members of the National Assembly which decreed this law, and they probably felt no very great objection to a law which made the tenure of their estates more valid. Those only had a right to complain who, like the Elector of Cologne, thereby lost the chance of escheats. There was no possible reason why the Baron de Bode should be made a special exception to the operation of the decree, nor why he should call upon England to interfere in the case, who was in no way a party to the treaty of Westphalia. There was not the slightest pretence on which the Baron de Bode could found a claim for compensation except as a French emigrant, and as a French emigrant he had already demanded compensation at the hands of the French Commissioners, and had had it awarded to him. On these grounds he considered that the House could not with propriety grant the Committee. He wished to say nothing harsh of the unfortunate claimant. He could quite enter into the feelings which prompted the Baron de Bode to pursue this claim with a pertinacity approaching to monomania. There were English subjects who had had awards in their favour, and who had money owing to them from this fund, so far back as the year 1820; and it would be a very mistaken and exclusive sort of philanthropy in the House to do anything towards sanctioning the present most unfounded claim, to the prejudice of their own fellow subjects. Indeed he believed that the refusal of this Committee would be a favour to Baron de Bode himself.
28
It was stated that it had cost him no less than 2,000 l. to prosecute his claim before the Commissioners in 1834, and it would be a doubtful act of kindness to expose him to a repetition of so large an outlay, besides the great loss which it would occasion to other unhappy claimants in the assertion of their rights. Nor would the matter stop here; for the assent of the House in the Baron de Bode's proposition would bring on many other claims founded on very narrow distinctions, such, for instance, as the Drummond case; and the House would become a House of appeal rather than a Legislative Assembly. On these grounds he trusted the House would put a decided and final negative upon the Baron de Bode's claim. In France he, doubtlessly, had claims, but in England not the shadow of one.
Mr. Wardconsidered the statement of the hon. Gentleman as unfair and partial; and he should support the Baron de Bode's claim, as a most just and long delayed demand upon a fund, the appropriation of which had not been satisfactorily made out, and required justification.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, that after the numerous discussions which had taken place on this question, it would not be necessary for him to trespass long on the attention of the House. There never was a more extraordinary case than the present, nor, he would add, a claim more unfounded in point of either law or justice. The claim was originally made in 1816, and was first admitted in 1819. The Baron de Bode was then called on to support it with evidence, but, not being prepared to do so, time was given him to collect the necessary proofs. The Commissioners even suggested the nature of the evidence which was required. What the Commissioners had done in order to afford facilities to Baron de Bode to perfect the evidence on which his case rested, and all the careful considerations that they had bestowed upon his case, was made by him a ground of complaint against the Commissioners, and a foundation upon which to rest a charge of bad faith against them. He had applied for additional time to put in evidence, which had been granted him, but he was certainly refused to be allowed to bring forward additional evidence at a time when to do so would have been at variance with all notions of law and practice. An award was given against him in May, 1822. He had, after failing in other respects, brought his case before the Privy Council, the highest tribunal of

29
appeal in such causes known to this country, and that tribunal had decided against him. He certainly had applied to be allowed to bring forward additional evidence, and his application was refused; and this refusal, the Member for Sheffield characterised as injustice. Why, surely, no person conversant with the principles on which our judicature was founded, could attempt to deny that it would be, on the contrary, most unjust, and a departure from all practice, to allow new evidence to be brought forward in a Court of Appeal, or to admit any evidence which had not been before the Court of the first instance, whose decision was appealed from. He was surprised that his hon. Friend, who had referred to his diplomatic experience, did not until now seem to be aware that to admit fresh evidence into a Court of Appeal would not only be a most singular application of the laws of evidence, but would, moreover, be a departure from the laws of common sense. Lord Stowell, whose great knowledge of international law no one would attempt to dispute, presided when judgment was given in the appeal before the Privy Council, and that eminent individual, in pronouncing judgment, said that Baron de Bode appeared to have been so much excited by this subject, that he seemed to labour under a strange delusion. That delusion seemed to him to have spread its infection over the mind of the Member for Bridport who had brought forward the motion, for in his estimation it certainly seemed that a more scandalous case of fraud than the present case had never been attempted to be palmed by the ingenuity of one man upon the credulity of another. The hon. Member who had brought forward the present motion appeared to lay some stress upon the fact that this case had, on former occasions, been brought forward by Lord Stanley, Lord Hatherton, Mr. M. D. Hill, and Mr. Gisborne; but could anything more strongly exhibit the utter feebleness of the case—the utter want of any merits to rest upon—than the fact that it had failed from its own intrinsic weakness, though aided by the powerful and able advocacy of the noble and hon. Friends whose authorities had been cited? The award of the Privy Council took place in 1822. The Baron de Bode applied for a re-hearing, which was refused. He was however bound to admit, that this refusal was not founded upon the merits of the case, but upon the fact, that the Privy Council had not the power to grant a re-hearing.
30
It was after this decision of the Privy Council that the Baron de Bode first appealed to Parliament, and his first trial of the House of Commons took place twelve years ago, when the case was brought forward by Mr. Littleton, who was well known to be both a personal and political friend of the late Mr. Canning. Yet Mr. Canning on that occasion opposed the motion, and disallowed the claim, saying most truly in 1826, that if a case having been decided upon by the proper jurisdiction was, after the final appeal to the ultimate tribunal, to be re-opened in the House of Commons, the Act of Parliament which gave to the Privy Council power of deciding in the last appeal would be rendered of no effect. When the case had, in 1830, been before the House he had felt that the Baron de Bode had no case, and had not supported the motion which had been brought forward, though that motion was introduced by a most able speech from his noble Friend (Lord Stanley). But that motion was negatived on the occasion which had been referred to; and his noble Friend, who was not a man to give way, if he felt that he had a good cause, never afterwards moved or voted on the subject. When the question was again brought forward in 1833, his noble Friend did not give it his support, admitting thereby, that after a party had brought his cause before the proper tribunals it would not be right for Parliament to reopen the proceedings. In 1834, in a very thin House, a Committee was granted contrary to the opinion of his noble Friend (Lord Spencer) then Chancellor of the Exchequer; before this Committee the Baron de Bode had the advantage of able counsel; and that Committee, having sat for three months, they had agreed to a report, stating that sufficient evidence had not been produced before them sufficient to support the case, and suggesting that further evidence was requisite, they recommended that the Committee should be revived in the next Session of Parliament. In the beginning of the Session of 1835, a motion for the appointment of a Committee was brought forward, but the House was counted out. This accident had happened more than once before. In fact it appeared that the House had tacitly voted the case to be a bore. The question was, however, afterwards brought under the notice of the House, who decided that they would not re-open the case or re-appoint the Committee, this decision being made by a majority

31
of 177 to 79. The right hon. Gentleman then read a letter from the Baron de Bode, in which, among other strange falsehoods, he asserted that Mr. Finlaison, on the part of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, had made him (the Baron de Bode) the offer of 300,000 l. in settlement of his claim. On the receipt of this extraordinary letter he immediately wrote to Mr. Finlaison, who denied having said anything of the sort, and added, that he could only explain the fact of the Baron's having written such a letter by supposing that from rumination on one point for twenty years he had become insane. But as the appeal of the Baron de Bode was now alleged to be made on moral grounds, let the House learn from Mr. Finlaison's statement how his first acquaintanceship with the Baron de Bode had originated through the medium of a deserving but unfortunate literary man. It was Stefano Petronj who had been driven to absolute beggary from having put his name to bills for more than he was worth, in order to supply funds for the Baron de Bode to enable him to prosecute these claims. Mr. Finlaison added, that he could prove that the Baron de Bode did not know his name before an interview which took place in consequence of his casual acquaintance with Petronj, nor that he was in the public service; that he never mentioned the name of the Chancellor of the Exchequer; and that if he had been capable of such conduct, he should have thought thirty years' service of the public lost upon him. And yet, notwithstanding this plain statement, the Baron de Bode dared to turn round and assert the contrary to all this in his letter to him. What, then, became of the Baron de Bode's character if he was a man who put one statement in his petitions and another in his letters—statements affecting both his character and that of Mr. Finlaison? Moreover, in addition to the case of misery he had mentioned, he believed that there was another person in prison on the Continent for a debt, which he had been inveigled into contracting by the baron for his own purposes. When, therefore, the hon. Mover and Seconder talked of the money that had been paid in expenses before Committees and Commissioners, he must admit that it was a grievance, but not a grievance to the Baron de Bode, it fell upon his creditors and his dupes. The right hon. Gentleman had read a portion of the evidence given before the
32
Commissioners on the subject of these claims. He had now but few words to say. The hon. Gentleman who brought forward the motion, had thought proper to indulge in some insinuations against him. The hon. Gentleman had suggested that Government was guilty of some fraud in withdrawing certain documents from the evidence. He wondered how the hon. Gentleman could deal so lightly with personal character as to insinuate against one whom he had known for twenty years, a charge which he would not have dared to make more directly.
Mr. Warburtonexplained, that the tampering with justice of which he complained was the withdrawal of the documents by the Commissioners.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerwas extremely happy to hear this explanation, but he could assure the hon. Gentleman that neither from him nor any one else would he submit in the face of the House of Commons to imputations of that description. With respect to the more general question respecting the accounts of the Commissioners, and the statement of balance unappropriated if the hon. Gentleman's object was a Committee, he had no objection; he would second the motion, but he must remind the hon. Gentleman that the step would not now be taken for the first time. The right hon. Gentleman concluded by cautioning the House against allowing itself to be induced by the distribution of pamphlets, or to be influenced, by private solicitations, in voting away the public money. If they permitted the jobbing and artifice which had too frequently mixed in the private business of the House to be transferred to votes of the public money, it was utterly in vain to expect that the financial business of the country could be rightly conducted. If hon. Gentlemen thought proper to vote away 300,000 l. to one man, and as much to any other who chose to claim it, without that safeguard and check which their ancestors had wisely placed upon it, he trusted also that, in all fairness, they would take upon themselves the responsibility of raising the taxes from which such sums were to be paid. If the hon. Member for Bridport, as the patron and advocate of all pecuniary grievances, would take upon himself to pay away half a million of money, solely upon the weight of his own character, which he (Mr. Rice) was disposed to admit was unquestionably great, he trusted also that he would relieve the Government from

33
that responsibility which they at present owed to the Sovereign and to the country.
Mr. Humethought, that the right hon. Gentleman, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, had attempted to mislead the House. The motion of his hon. Friend, the Member for Bridport, was not for a vote of the public money, but for a Committee of inquiry, with a view to ascertain whether the claims of the Baron de Bode were legitimate and just. The French Government had deposited in the hands of the Government of this country 7,000,000f. for the benefit of those who should succeed in substantiating their claims, and the House ought not, therefore, by a technicality, to shut the Baron de Bode out from the opportunity of establishing his claim. That was the sole question before the House. He did not mean to defend any of the acts or conduct of the Baron, which had been mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman, but the House should recollect that the Government was only trustee of the money.
Mr. Wardwished to be permitted to say a few words in explanation. He had never seen either the letters of Mr. Finlaison or the Baron de Bode. He had taken his views of the matter from a high legal authority, who was the person described as having been formerly engaged as counsel in the cause, and with whom he believed the learned Solicitor-General was acquainted. He alluded to Mr. Langslow, to whom Mr. Finlaison had admitted, that he (Mr. Finlaison) had held with the Baron de Bode a conversation very much to the purport stated in the Baron's letter—namely, that he had estimated the reversionary interest at 300,000 l. and that he was willing, if the Baron would abide by the estimate, and consent that the matter should be referred to arbitration, to apply to the Chancellor of the Exchequer on his behalf.
The Chancellor of the Exchequercould only say, that the letter which he had read was not prepared with a view to its being brought to bear upon the present debate. It was dated as far back as the 6th of November, 1836, when the matter was recent and fresh in Mr. Finlaison's mind. Upon receiving the Baron's letter, he sent it to Mr. Finlaison, who sent in answer the letter which he had read. In order, however, that there might be no difficulty about the matter, or mistake about the nature of the Baron de Bode's
34
claims, he would move that both letters be printed and distributed, for the use of Members and the public.
The House divided:—Ayes 28; Noes 108. Majority 80.

List of the AYES.

Aglionby, H. A.

Molesworth, Sir W.

Aglionby, Major

Morris, D.

Barnard, E. G.

O'Connell, D.

Beamish, F. B.

Pechell, Capt.

Blake, M. J.

Round, C. G.

Blake, W. J.

Sinclair, Sir G.

Browne, R. D.

Stewart, J.

Bruges, W. H.

Talfourd, Sergt.

Duncombe, T.

Vigors, N. A.

Fenton, J.

Wallace, R.

Forbes, W.

Ward, H. G.

Hall, B.

Williams, W.

Handley, H.

Hawes, B.

TELLERS.

Hayter, W. G.

Warburton, H.

Logan, H.

Hume, J.

List of the NOES.

Adam, Sir C.

Gibson, T.

Anson, hon. Col.

Gladstone, W. E.

Arbuthnot, hon. H.

Glynne, Sir S. R.

Bagge, W.

Goddard, A.

Baines, E.

Gordon, R.

Baring, F. T.

Gordon, hon. Capt.

Barry, G. S.

Goring, H. D.

Bateman, J.

Greenaway, C.

Bentinck, Lord G.

Grey, Sir G.

Bernal, R.

Grimsditch, T.

Blennerhassett, A.

Hastie, A.

Broadley, H.

Hawkins, J. H.

Brocklehurst, J.

Hobhouse, rt. hn. Sir J.

Brotherton, J.

Hobhouse, T. B.

Burroughs, H. N.

Hodgson, R.

Busfield, W.

Howard, P. H.

Byng, rt. hon. G. S.

Howick, Viscount

Campbell, Sir J.

Hughes, W. B.

Chalmers, P.

Inglis, Sir R. H.

Chandos, Marquess of

James, W.

Chichester, J. P. B.

Lascelles, hon. W. S.

Collier, J.

Lennox, Lord G.

Copeland, Mr. Ald.

Lennox, Lord A.

Cripps, J.

Lister, E. C.

Curry, W.

Litton, E.

Dalmeny, Lord

Macleod, R.

Dalrymple, Sir A.

Marsland, H.

Darlington, Earl of

Marsland, T.

Davies, Col.

Maule, hon. F.

Douglas, Sir C. E.

Maunsell, T. P.

Duncombe, hon. W.

Morpeth, Viscount

Duncombe, hon. A.

Murray, rt. hon. J. A.

Dundas, C. W. D.

Packe, C. W.

Easthope, J.

Palmerston, Viscount

Eliot, Lord

Parnell, rt. hon. Sir H.

Farnham, E. B.

Plumptre, J. P.

Feilden, W.

Price, Sir R.

Fellowes, E.

Pringle, A.

Fergusson, rt. hn. R. C.

Protheroe, E.

Fitzalan, Lord

Rice, rt. hn. T. S.

Gaskell, Jas Milnes

Rich, H.

35

Rickford, W.

Troubridge, Sir E. T.

Rolfe, Sir R. M.

Turner, E.

Rose, Sir G.

Turner, W.

Russell, Lord J.

Vere, Sir C. B.

Salwey, Col.

Verney, Sir H.

Seymour, Lord

Vivian, J. E.

Slaney, R. A.

Vivian, Sir R. H.

Smith, R. V.

Wall, C. B.

Stanley, E. J.

White, A.

Stanley, W. O.

Wilbraham, G.

Stuart, H.

Wood, C.

Stuart, V.

Yates, J. A.

Strickland, Sir G.

TELLERS.

Surrey, Earl of

Parker, J.

Tancred, H. W.

Steuart, R.

POOR-LAW—GILBERT'S ACT.
Mr. T. Duncombefelt bound to state, that in making a motion to give an instruction to the Poor-law Committee he had two distinct objects in view—in the first place, to ascertain whether the system of the new Poor-law unions is superior to the system adopted under Gilbert's Act; and, secondly, in order that the individual guardians under Gilbert's Act should have a public opportunity of rebutting the charges and accusations that have been made against them by the Poor-law Commissioners in their third Report, merely, as it appeared to him, for the purpose of inducing the House to give their consent, that additional powers should be vested in the Commissioners for dissolving unions, without the consent of those guardians who objected to any alteration until they should be perfectly satisfied that a better, a more economical, and a more humane system could be substituted in lieu of the present system. There were several amusing passages in the third Report of the Commissioners, which at an earlier hour he would have felt it his duty to read; but there were other parts which caused a very great sensation in the West Riding of Yorkshire, the whole of which was at this moment incorporated in unions under Gilbert's Act. There were about 150 townships thus incorporated, and the Poor-law Commissioners wished the House to give them additional powers to dissolve these unions, without the consent of the guardians. The reasons why they stated they wished for these powers were, that the guardians, in the administration not only of relief, but in their own conduct, had been extremely corrupt, and that the system itself was vicious. But they were not satisfied with attributing dishonest motives to the guardians, but they wished the House to believe, that these indi-
36
viduals were idiots and fools. He would venture to say, that if the Poor-law Committee that was sitting up stairs summoned some of those individuals from Yorkshire they would acquire more information than they had already with regard to the distribution of relief, and it would appear, that the Poor-law Committee were very much in want of practical information, which those much-abused individuals could give them. There were one or two passages in the Report to which he would call the attention of the House. The Report, at page 418, stated, that obstacles were raised on the part of the guardians to the dissolution of the unions, partly from adverse personal interests, and partly from the difficulty of convincing them of the general advantages of a change of system. The Report also stated, that under Gilbert's Act the guardians received, some 5l., some 10 l., and some as much as 20 l. each. Now, that he denied, with regard to the West Riding of Yorkshire. The Report stated, that many of the guardians were uncultivated and prejudiced, that they were unable to write their own names, that arguments of a general nature were totally unintelligible to them, and that they were guided in their proceeding by matters purely local. Now, with regard to the guardians being paid, he believed that the Poor Relief (Ireland) Bill provided, that the guardians should be paid. If the system were vicious with regard to Gilbert's Act, he would like to know why it should not be equally vicious with regard to Ireland. To illustrate what he had before adverted to, he would read what the Commissioners stated with with respect to the Oswestry union. They stated—
"At the last meeting of the, board of the Oswestry incorporation, when the directors again refused to dissolve, a butcher of the town was in the chair, who was himself supplying the house with meat, and the resolution was carried with every magistrate in the room voting against it. At the Montgomery and Pool union, at the largest meeting ever known there, the lord-lieutenant of the county was in the chair, himself owning one-fifth of the property in the incorporation, and strongly advocating the propriety of its dissolution, though he himself brought in the Act under which it was constituted. Six out of eight of the magistrates present voted on the same side, and nearly all the holders of the property affected, in the room; nevertheless the dissentients carried their point by a majority of eighty-four to thirty-six. Yet this was in direct op-

37
position to evidence adduced to prove, that even by comparison with a neighbouring incorporation (and that, too, far from a well-managed one) their expenditure was fifty per cent higher than was necessary."
Thus they, at once, attributed corrupt motives to the butcher: but he would like to know why similar motives should not be attributed to the lord-lieutenant who owned one-fifth of the property of the union, and to the six magistrates who, with him, voted for its dissolution? But was the butcher the only one who could be suspected of acting from corrupt motives? Had not the Poor-law Commissioners an interest in putting an end to Gilbert's Unions throughout the whole country? Were not the assistant commissioners receiving 30,000 l. a-year, and was not the sum of 6,000 l. a-year paid to those Commissioners who were sitting in Somerset House? He, therefore, thought, that he had as much right to say, that the Poor-law Commissioners had adverse, private, and personal interests in framing this Report, as the butcher had in giving his vote. He denied, that these guardians were the uneducated and incompetent persons they were reported to be; on the contrary, they were in most cases persons of property in the parish, and perfectly competent to manage the affairs of the parish with equal advantage to the rate-payers and the poor. At the same time they were quite ready to give evidence on the subject, which he (Mr. Duncombe) had no doubt would comprise much valuable information not only to this House, but to the Poor-law Commissioners. The guardians maintained, that the Gilbert system was better and more economical than the new one sought to be introduced by the Commissioners; but at the same time they were willing to have the question brought to an issue, and if the new system should be proved to be better than their own they were prepared to dissolve their boards in favour of the Commissioners. This was so reasonable a proposal that he hoped her Majesty's Government would consent to it, and give the guardians a fair and impartial hearing. The hon. Member then moved, that "it be an instruction to the Poor-law Committee to inquire on the subject of that portion of the third report of the Poor-law Commissioners which referred to the vicious system alleged by them to have been pursued by the existing corporations under Gilbert's Act."
Sir G. Strickland, in seconding the motion, expressed his entire concurrence in what had been stated by his hon. Friend. Let hon. Members recollect, that when Gilbert's Act was passed and brought into operation, it was admitted on all hands that it worked well, and that it would be a public benefit to have the management of the whole poor placed under that act, Now, however, it appeared to be the wish to swamp that act, and to throw the whole authority in the management of the poor into the hands of the Poor-law Commissioners. He would support the proposed inquiry, because he believed it would have the effect of allaying the excitement which now existed in the country on this subject.
Lord J. Russelldid not understand that the motion would impose any newground of inquiry on the Poor-law Commissioners, and he would not, therefore, offer any objection to it. The Committee would have to consider the working of the law under Gilbert's Act, but he did not think that it would go into the inquiry whether the statements of the Poor-law Commissioners were correct or not. He would not at that time enter into the merits of Gilbert's Act. He would admit, that at the time it was passed it was an improvement on the law as it then stood, but abuses had crept in under it, which the New Poor-law would serve to correct. If the advocates of the Gilbert Act could show that it was better, he had no objection to hear them.
Mr. Hallwas glad that this motion was brought forward. In the parishes of St. Pancras and Marylebone which he represented, they were governed in the administration of the poor by a local act, and it worked well, and the parishioners were determined to oppose, by every means, the introduction of any other system.
Captain Pechellsaid, that he was connected with an union of nineteen parishes in Sussex, which was governed by a local act. The Poor-law Commissioners wished to have the power of dissolving that union, but he thought that was a power which should not be given to them, but be reserved to the Legislature itself. With respect to the reports of the Commissioners, he must say, that in many instances they were most unfair. The guardians under the local act were charged with corruption. That charge he declared to be unfounded. They never derived any personal benefit from their exertions. The proposed inquiry would, he thought, be most useful in its

39
results. It would show the absurdity of some portions of the Commissioners' reports. In one of these it was said, that where the new system had been adopted the men, who before had been discontented, now went to their work whistling and as happy as birds. This, however, he begged leave to deny.
Mr. Brothertonsupported the motion. He was sure that the payments under the present system were greater than at any former period. He spoke from experience for he was intimately acquainted with the management of the poor at Salford.
Motion agreed to.

SABBATH TRADING.
Mr. Plumptrerose for leave to bring in a bill for the suppression of trading on the Lord's Day, commonly called Sunday. The subject had been so frequently before the House he should not trouble it by entering into any details although he was prepared to do so if it were desired.
Mr. W. Duncombeseconded the motion, and said that the general voice of the country demanded some measure of this kind, which he hoped would be passed before the session closed.
Mr. Hallwished to know whether the bill which the hon. Member proposed to bring in was specifically confined to trading; and he gave notice that if it extended to interfere with the recreations and amusements of the people, which in large towns particularly were so essential to the happiness and health of the community, he should give the bill his most decided opposition.
Mr. P. Howardhoped that the bill would be adapted to the present state of society, and not attempt unnecessarily to interfere with the liberty of the subject.
Captain Pechellsaid, that before he could consent to the introduction of the bill he wished distinctly to know whether it would interfere in any way with the fisheries or the fish-market. He also wished to know whether there would be any interference with the sailors on the sailing and arrival of her Majesty's ships? If these questions were answered to his satisfaction, he should have no objection to the circulation of the bill through the country.
Sir G. Stricklandthought it extremely desirable, that the hon. Gentleman should be allowed to bring in his bill without having every Member putting questions
40
with reference to the particular interest with which he happened to be connected.
Mr. O'Connellfelt called on to say, as a matter of justice, that in no country was the Sabbath more decently observed than in England. If there were any trading not justified by charity or necessity, it would be well to prevent it; but in any attempts at legislation they ought not to calumniate this country by suggesting any thing against their due observance of the Sabbath.
Mr. Chisholmreminded the hon. and learned Member for Dublin, that so far from the inhabitants of this country considering it a calumny to impute to them a desire to legislate with regard to the Sabbath, they proved their wish to do so by the numerous petitions presented on this subject.
Mr. Warburtonsaid, that if they were to legislate on this subject they ought to do so in an impartial spirit. The rich could go to the country on Sundays to see their friends without hiring and conveyance, having their own carriages to convey them. But if trading were altogether prevented on the Sabbath they would shut out from the middling and poorer classes an opportunity of taking part in those amusements which were absolutely necessary to their health. The bill of Sir A. Agnew was partial in its nature and deserved to fail. He had no objection to allow the hon. Gentleman to bring in his bill, and give him an opportunity of explaining his intentions.
Leave given.

INTIMIDATION OF VOTERS.
Mr. Slaneymoved for leave to bring in a bill to prevent threat or attempts at intimidation to voters to influence their votes for Members of Parliament. As to the necessity of some measure on this subject all seemed to agree. The intimidation Committee had shown, that there was not a single part of England which did not afford evidence of the necessity of devising some mode for the protection of the voter in the honest exercise of the franchise. Many of his friends thought that the protection of the ballot would ensure that object; but he had lately by his vote proved that he could not in his conscience sanction that opinion. He was persuaded, however, of the necessity of checking that intimidation which was known to prevail so widely. An extensive alteration as to

41
the possessors of the franchise was effected by the Reform Bill. In this system abuses had grown up which it was essential to check. With this view he had introduced the present measure. It was impolitic, he conceived, that any bill which it was wished to make effectual should be so severe as to have the general opinion of mankind run counter to it. He had, therefore, endeavoured to frame such a measure as, while it visited the offence, affixed to it only such a punishment as should ensure the attainment of the object he had in view by the general concurrence. He intended that any landlord, customer, master, or any other person who should in any form or way interfere with the independent exercise of the franchise, should be considered guilty of a misdemeanour. He meant, next, that any person so offending should be liable to be convicted before two magistrates, or indicted at the Sessions before a jury. If taken before two magistrates he should have the power of appealing to the Sessions, not to the bench of magistrates, but to a trial by jury. Should he be convicted, he would be liable to a fine of 100 l. with a power of mitigation, a under special circumstances, to 50 l. The person intimidated he intended should be a competent witness; and if he were a voter he might have half the fine paid over to him. The proceeding on this measure was limited to six months after the period when the offence was committed. He did not pretend to say, that such a measure would altogether prevent, but he thought it well calculated to diminish, the number of offences committed on the ground of intimidation.
Mr. Warburtonsaid, that when the ballot was under discussion the other evening, the noble Lord (Lord John Russell) had used intelligible arguments against it, to which he was willing to accede the commendation of sincerity. But when the hon. Gentleman proposed a bill to prevent, by penalties the practice of intimidation, he looked upon it to be just as impossible a problem in politics or morals as the squaring a circle in geometry, or perpetual motion in mechanics. When a person now voted contrary to the wish of his customer was he told the reason why that custom was withdrawn? When no reason was alleged, now that no penalty existed, was it likely that there would be, when it was made a penal offence. Such a measure was a mockery of legislation.
Mr. P. Howardthought, that no measure on this subject which did not emanate from the Government, or which was not founded on the report of the Intimidation Committee, would be well received by the House. He should therefore be inclined, if he were supported by the House, to resist the introduction of this Bill.
Mr. Humebegged to ask his hon. Friend one question. Suppose a steward were to attend an election (which they had too good reason to suspect was the case at the late elections), for the purpose of influencing by his presence the vote of the elector, was he to be considered liable to the penalties of the Act?
Mr. Slaneybegged that his hon. Friend would allow him to introduce his Bill, and see how far the phraseology met the object which he contemplated.
Mr. Haweswas of opinion, that instead of attempting to put down intimidation by penalties, they should give the voter the privilege by allowing him to conceal his vote, of acting as he thought fit. He was not averse to a remedy for intimidation; but instead of this being a bill to put down intimidation, it was a bill to promote vexatious informations.
Lord John Russellfelt, that what had passed that evening proved what he had stated the other night, that if any other remedy than that then submitted were proposed, the greatest discontent would be expressed with regard to it, and every proof would be given that there was only one efficient remedy for the evils complained of. He would not deny, that there was a great deal of truth in what his hon. Friend, the Member for Bridport, had said. He readily believed, that it could not be shown that intimidation was used beforehand, and yet that the voter suffered a penalty consequent on the discovery that he exercised his franchise contrary to the wish of those who possessed control over his acts. At the same time he owned he was disposed to attach some value to the declarations of Parliament on this subject. Much the same objection might be urged with respect to bribery. Supposing that a person was ready to offer a bribe, and a voter to give his vote to the highest bidder for it; if this transaction were conducted secretly, it would be extremely difficult by any law or penalty to prevent this act of bribery. Yet, if no laws existed against bribery, it would prevail to a far greater extent than

43
it now existed. He had suggested to his hon. Friend, when he saw on the paper this notice to bring in a bill, that it would be a more proper way to preface it by resolutions of that House. They had resolutions with respect to bribery; and they had a Committee with regard to bribery and intimidation, which found no difficulty in the investigation or proof of these evils; and he, therefore, was persuaded that resolutions in accordance with the law and the well-known institutions of the country must themselves make some impression as a declaration of the sense of that House, and must form a more proper foundation for any measure than the authority of an individual Member. Being, however, convinced that great evil existed from the manner in which intimidation was practised, and it being the opinion of the hon. Gentleman that some good might be accomplished by his Bill, he could not give a vote against its introduction. He hoped that the House would not so far discountenance an attempt of this kind as to refuse to examine the provisions of this measure.
Mr. Scarlettadmitted, that intimidation was odious. He was disposed to think, however, that hon. Gentlemen drew on their imagination too largely with respect to the intimidation of voters. He had some experience in elections, and he found that the more attempts were made to intimidate the voter the less they succeeded. In order to make the voter perfectly independent, a higher qualification ought to be exacted.
Sir George Stricklandthought, that the House ought to be allowed an opportunity of discussing some less objectionable mode than the ballot of preventing the evil of intimidation. He should, therefore, support the motion for leave to bring in the Bill.
Mr. Jerviswas altogether hostile to the proposition. To correct the evil complained of, the tribunal proposed to be erected by this Bill was the worst that could possibly be devised. Two magistrates, with a jury of farmers! These were the parties to determine whether any intimidation had been practised by landlords. The noble Lord had endeavoured to draw an analogy between intimidation and bribery. There was no analogy between the two. Bribery was a positive act, and consequently open to detection; whereas intimidation might be practised
44
in a thousand ways without the possibility of detection. The only efficient protection to the voter was the right of secret voting. With these views upon the subject, although he admitted the course to be an unusual one, he should certainly vote against the motion for leave to introduce the Bill.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, that resistance to the introduction of a bill was not only unusual, but in this instance, he thought, unjustifiable. He thought the proposition a very reasonable one for the House to entertain. The evil of intimidation was admitted on all hands: therefore it became the duty of the House to inquire whether some practical remedy could not be devised. If the provisions of the Bill now proposed should appear not to afford a practical remedy, it might be rejected upon the second reading. If the House refused to entertain the Bill at all, it must rest its resistance to it upon one of two grounds—either that it did not believe the existence of the evil, or else that there was no remedy for the evil except the ballot. He was not prepared to declare in the affirmative of either of these propositions. If the House rejected the motion for the introduction of the Bill, the natural inference would be, that it did not wish to prevent intimidation.
Mr. Brothertonhoped, that the hon. Gentleman would be allowed to bring in the bill. He thought that the mere circumstance of such a measure being introduced and discussed by the House might possibly have so great a moral influence in the country as to prevent the necessity of resorting to the ballot.
Mr. Gillonconsidered, that the suggestions of the noble Lord with respect to a resolution of that House would be of no avail. The resolutions that were passed every Session were quite farcical. In spite of the resolutions of that House it was now scarcely attempted to be disguised that Peers interfered in the elections of Members of Parliament.
Mr. Forbessuggested, that the bill should have a clause introduced to protect voters from intimidation by blows. In his opinion, that kind of intimidation was a very effective one, and the bill would be useless without it. He should not oppose the motion if it came to a division.
Colonel Sibthorpwas satisfied that no efficient remedy could be applied to prevent the evil, unless a curb were put upon

45
the influence and control of the Government. An instance had occurred within the last few days. It was currently reported, as well out of the House, as within its walls, that in consequence of what took place upon the debate on the ballot a scene occurred in the Cabinet, which for a time placed all the members of it completely at sixes and sevens. It was currently reported that something like an altercation took place, and that one noble Lord, exercising a vast portion of the influence of the ministry, said to another noble Lord, "Either you or I must go out." This produced the necessary obedience. But if such an exertion of influence had its effect in the very cabinet itself, composed, of course, of men of strong and high minds, how much more powerful must it be when applied to persons in less eminent situations? It was often difficult to know what was meant by bribery and intimidation. He had been charged with both, because he had performed common acts of charity, and discharged what he considered to be his duty to his fellow creatures. Benevovolence extended to the widows of deceased voters, from whom he asked no favour in return, had been magnified into the grossest bribery and corruption. He should not object to the introduction of the present bill, but unless a clause were introduced to prevent the exercise of the influence of the Government at elections, he thought that it would be productive of little good.
Sir George Sinclairshould certainly oppose the introduction of the bill, because he thought nothing so likely to countenance and increase the evil as the adoption of an insufficient and futile remedy.
The Attorney-Generalthought, that the hon. Member for Shrewsbury would be very hardly dealt by if he were not allowed to bring in the bill. When the hon. Member rose to propose it there was a general cry of "move, move!" from all sides of the House, from which the natural inference to be drawn was, that the House was disposed to receive the proposition by general acclamation. It was not until the hon. Gentleman, at the request of the hon. Member for Bridport, had given a very brief outline of his plan, that any opposition was manifested. He did not think this a right course of proceeding. He by no means pledged himself to sup-
46
port the bill in its future stages, but he should certainly vote in favour of the motion for leave to bring it in.
Lord George Bentinckthought, the nostrum proposed in this bill so nauseous and inefficient that the time of the House ought not to be wasted in going into a second discussion. He should therefore vote against its introduction.
The House divided:—Ayes 50; Noes 23: Majority 27.

List of the AYES.

Acland, Sir T. D.

Lennox, Lord G.

Acland, T. D.

Lennox, Lord A.

Aglionby, H. A.

Lowther, J. H.

Baines, E.

Marsland, T.

Baring, F. T.

Morpeth, Viscount

Blewitt, R. J.

Morris, D.

Boldero, H. G.

Murray, rt. hon. J. A.

Borthwick, P.

Palmerston, Viscount

Brotherton, J.

Pease, J.

Busfeild, W.

Pechell, Captain

Campbell, Sir J.

Plumptre, J. P.

Darlington, Earl of

Pringle, A.

Douglas, Sir C. E.

Rice, rt. hon. T. S.

Duncombe, T.

Russell, Lord J.

Evans, W.

Seymour, Lord

Farnham, E. B.

Sibthorp, Colonel

Finch, F.

Smith, R. V.

Forbes, W.

Steuart, R.

Gaskell, Jas. Milnes

Stuart, H.

Gladstone, W. E.

Talfourd, Sergeant

Grey, Sir G.

Williams, W.

Grimsditch, T.

Wood, G. W.

Hastie, A.

Yates, J. A.

Hobhouse, T. B.

Hodgson, R.

TELLERS.

Hughes, W. B.

Slaney, R. A.

Lascelles, hon. W. S.

Strickland, Sir G.

List of the NOES

Aglionby, Major

James, W.

Bagge, W.

Jervis, J.

Beamish, F. B.

Langdale, hon. C.

Blake, M. J.

Litton, E.

Chalmers, P.

Molesworth, Sir W.

Davies, Colonel

Stewart, J.

Gibson, T.

Thornley, T.

Gillon, W. D.

Vigors, N. A.

Goring, H. D.

Wallace, R.

Hawes, B.

Warburton, H.

Howard, P. H.

TELLERS.

Hume, J.

Bentinck, Lord G.

Inglis, Sir R. H.

Sinclair, Sir G.

Leave given.

CALL OF THE HOUSE.
Sir William Molesworthsaid, that as it had been supposed he was not serious in his intention to bring on the motion of which he had given notice for the 6th of March, he begged to state that he was determined to

47
take the sense of a full House upon it, with a view of ascertaining their opinion as to the delays which had taken place in, and as to the general conduct which had been pursued by, the Colonial Department. He should now, therefore, persevere in the motion of which he had given notice for a call of the House on that day. He intended to confine his motion for that day to the subject of the Colonial office, and not, as some persons imagined, make it a call upon the House to express an opinion with regard to her Majesty's Ministers generally, about whom he had, ever since the speech of the noble Lord at the head of the Home Department, at the commencement of this Session, been as perfectly indifferent and careless as he was about the ministers of the Czar of all the Russias or of the Emperor of China. His object was, firstly and chiefly to relieve those colonial possessions of her Majesty, in whose prosperity this country had the greatest interest, from the control of an imbecile and oppressive Government. This was his main wish. Secondly (and in so far a party question would be involved in the motion), his object was to ascertain and exhibit to the House and the country how many Members there were in this House, whether Tories, Whigs, or Radicals, who would, for mere party purposes, venture either to negative or refuse to maintain a proposition of the very greatest importance, and which almost every one of them, in their consciences, knew to be perfectly true. These were the reasons for which he now took the liberty to ask the House to grant his motion, namely, "that the House be called over on the 6th of March."
Motion agreed to.