Commons Sitting of 2 May 1839

MINUTES.
Petitions presented. By Sir JOHN TYRRELL, Sir R. FEERGUSON, and Messrs. F. BERKELEY, P. How-

721
ARD, CAVENDISH, THORNELEY, HUME, HOPE, PEASE, and a number of other MEMBERS of a great many places, for a Uniform Penny Postage.—By Lord GRANVILLE SOMERSET, from Monmouth, against any plan of Education not under the Superintendance of the Church.—By Lord ARTHUR LENNOX, from Chichester, for Church Extension in the Colonies.—By Mr. BURKE, from Devon, against the Repeal of the Corn-laws.—By Mr. P. BERKELEY, from the Bristol Chamber of Commerce, against the Imprisonment for Debt Act.—By Mr. BIACESTONE, from Wallingford, against appointing Dissenting or Catholic Chaplains to Prisons.—By Mr. HUME, from Malta, in favour of the Liberty of the Press in that Island.—By Sir JOHN TYRRELI, from two places in Essex, against any further Grant to Maynooth College; and for Church Extension in the Colonies.

TRADE WITH AFRICA.
Sir S. Lushingtonsaid, that at the conclusion of last Session he bad moved for the production of the correspondence relating to the outrages of which certain merchants of this country complained they had suffered from the French authorities on the western coast of Africa. At that time the noble Secretary for Foreign Affairs refused to produce the documents, on the ground that a negotiation was pending with the French government. A considerable time had now elapsed, and it was five years from the date of the first aggression; four since that of the second. He regretted to say, that even since the date of his motion last year, intelligence of fresh injuries and aggressions had been received. No redress for the former outrages had been obtained, and he could not but think, that if the injuries of which he complained on behalf of the British merchants had really been inflicted as he was instructed, they were really and truly injuries which called for some redress. The time had, in his opinion, then arrived when ample opportunity for inquiry must needs have occurred. It was a great and important question which was to be decided, namely, whether the British nation shall be excluded in future from the trade she had hitherto enjoyed on the western coast of Africa. This was the question to be decided, if indeed it was not already decided; because if he was not misinformed, an insult had been offered by a French naval officer to the British nation, in the person of the British merchants trading on that coast, which remained unredressed to that hour, and not merely unredressed, but so far from it, that not even the shadow of an apology to that hour had been made by the French Government. With reference to the question of the alliance between France and England, and the necessity which was
722
sometimes urged of abstaining from any expressions which could tend to interrupt the harmony of that alliance, he would remark that he had long come to the conclusion that the best and most desirable method of putting a stop to any aggressions of this nature which might take place on the part of either of two allied nations upon the other, was for the latter nation to urge not merely reparation, but reparation within a reasonable time. In such cases the delay of justice amounted to a denial of justice. It was not his intention to enter into a long statement on the subject; he should confine himself to an outline of the facts as he understood them to have occurred. These facts consisted in certain aggressions on British trade which had taken place at Portendic, on the west coast of Africa, in pursuance of the orders of a French naval officer. Through the whole period between 1814 and 1834, as he understood, the British nation had been interfered with in this trade. The liberty of trade with Portendic, and with various ports on the coast of Senegal, was secured to the British nation by the treaty between France and England concluded in 1783, and it was expressly stipulated in the 9th article of that treaty, that the English should have the liberty of carrying on the gum trade from the mouth of the river St. John to the bay and fort of Portendic inclusively; and he contended that the Government of France in the course they had taken, had acted in violation both of national law and of justice towards the inhabitants of this country. In July 1834, without any previous notice that the French Government intended to break in upon the established custom of twenty years, and exclude British traffic from those parts, the following transaction took place, which he should best convey to the House by reading the letter sent by the French officer, M. Leveque, when the House would observe the imperative manner in which this gentleman thought fit to command a master of a British merchant's vessel to cease from trading. The letter was short, but every word of it was deserving of consideration, as being addressed to a British subject, carrying on what he would assert was a lawful trade. The letter ran thus:—
"Sir,—Considering that in violation of the laws subsisting between civilized nations, the Governor of St. Mary's, in the Gambia, has sent you to Portendic, where you constantly

723
afford provisions to the Trazars, with whom we are at war; that he has thus failed in the gratitude which he owes to the French Government; considering, moreover, the nature of your cargo, which cannot but be of material assistance to that tribe; and finally, acting according to the instructions which I have received from the Governor of Senegal, I have the honour to request, that you will forthwith get under weigh, and not trade with the Moors at Portendic, except under sail, as it had been stipulated in the treaties concluded between the two Governments. Should you decline acceding to my request, be so good as to signify your refusal in writing, as I am fully resolved, in that case, to compel you to take the course I have suggested. "I have, &c.,
"C. LEVLQUE.
"To the Captain of the Industry."
Now, with respect to this most extraordinary letter he was almost at a loss to know what was meant by some of the expressions contained in it. When "all laws subsisting between civilized nations" were spoken of, he found it impossible to say what laws were meant. He would undertake to say, that there was not a syllable in that letter which was either founded in fact, or founded in law; and he would say, that the first act of the French Government ought to have been to disavow a document of this nature. The Governor of St. Mary's never sent Mr. G. Gunson, the captain of the Industry, to trade at Portendic, and the "violation of all laws of civilized nations" was effected, he supposed, by the introduction of a cargo of cotton for the ship contained no provisions for the Trazars. The writer went on to say—"I have to request that you will forthwith get under weigh, and not trade with the Moors at Portendic, except under sail, as has been stipulated in the treaties concluded between the two governments." Now he would read to the House the 9th article of the treaty of 1783, to which allusion was here made, and then the House would be able to judge how lawless was the construction put upon it by the French commander. The article said,
"As to the gum trade, the English shall have the liberty of carrying it on from the mouth of the river St. John to the bay and fort of Portendic inclusively, provided that they shall not form any permanent settlement, of what nature soever, in the said river St. John, upon the coast, or in the bay of Portendic."
The condition of the article is not to form a permanent settlement, and the French commander construes a vessel throwing
724
down an anchor, in the harbour to be within the condition! On such grounds it was, that a French commander had the temerity (for he could call it nothing else) to order the master of a British vesssel to carry on his trade under sail—a thing which on that coast, is altogether impossible. What was the reply of the British captain? It was a temperate, prudent, but firm reply. He refused to obey this daring edict, and he said he had a right so to refuse. There was no pretence of a blockade of the port on the part of the French; there was a futile pretence of an interdict, or something of that nature; but, in reality, the true ground of the proceeding was the insolence of the French commander. There was 5,000 l. worth of gum on board the British vessel; the master covered it with the British flag for protection. The French commander fired against the British flag, destroyed the gum, the property of British merchants, and then seized the ship, arrested the supercargoes and officers, and made them prisoners. This was in July, 1834. Re was not desirous of impressing the importance of this subject on the House by the use of strong terms; but in this case, strong and undeniable and founded in justice as it was, he would not consent to be the advocate of the cause, and then betray it by the weakness of his expressions, or the vacillation of his conduct. In 1835 the French government proceeded to blockade the coast, and he said, first, that this was in direct defiance of their written undertaking, that they would not blockade that coast; secondly, that they had no pretence that was justifiable for the step; third, he said, that it was a blockade for the purpose of destroying the British trade, and acquiring for themselves a monopoly of the trade on that coast. What was the worth of the pretence, that the French were at war with the Trazars? Why, that people had not a shadow of a claim to the country about Portendic! Whatever was the right to the port or to the coast on the part of that people, they had ceded it to the French by the treaty of 1723. In fact the Trazars lived 100 miles distant from Portendic. Still the blockade was made tinder the pretence, that the English captain was in the habit of affording provisions to the Trazars. He begged the House to consider the value of this trade to Great Britain. Gum was an essential necessary to

725
be used in a great variety of our manufactures. 29,000 cwt. were imported last year; the increase in the quantity imported was very great within the last few years; but how had this increase been made? Not in British vessels. For since 1835 not a single ounce of guru had been imported from Portendic in British bottoms. Since 1835, that trade had been extinguished as regarded the British nation. The French had succeeded to and supplanted us in a trade which the English had a right to carry on. The French government ought now to give the British nation the requisite satisfaction for what had passed—they ought to give redress for the outrage already committed, and security against the recurrence of the like in future. He wished to call the attention of the House to the existing state of things. He had no reason to doubt, that the noble Secretary for Foreign Affairs had made strong and urgent claim for reparation; he had no reason to doubt that the noble Lord viewed this transaction to a considerable extent in the same light as he himself viewed it; but he put it to the House, whether any further delay should be allowed, while the French government on pretexts not founded on facts, nor on circumstauces, inconsistent with the true law of nations, from day to day, and from month to month, and from year to year, procrastinated the settlement of the question. He hoped, that the French nation, too, through their administration, if ever they should have the good fortune to get an administration again, of which there seemed some little doubt, or otherwise that the royal individual who seemed to have in his hands the destinies of the nation, might at length find, that neither her Majesty's Government nor the British House of Commons, who were bound to redress wrongs like these, would allow no more time to be consumed in long dissertations upon this subject, coming back the moment one point was settled, to some other point that had already been settled, and delaying, from hour to hour, and from day to day, the concession of what roust ultimately, in his opinion, be conceded. The right hon. and learned Member in conclusion moved an address for copies of all correspondence between her Majesty's Government and France relative to the claims of her Majesty's subjects on account of injuries inflicted on British trade
726
on the western coast of Africa since 1834.
Mr. Grotewould not have interfered, if he had not satisfied himself, that there had been great wrong and great aggravation in the way of insult and oppression offered to the British merchant. If the same wrong had been inflicted on any French merchant, he (Mr. Grote) should have said, that, the Englishman by whom it was inflicted, deserved the most serious reprimand and censure. The person on whom this great positive wrong had been inflicted—this same merchant had sustained a still further loss by being interdicted from carrying on trade there ever since. There was also the very serious and permanent damage of having that trade for ever interdicted to English capital and enterprise. He hoped, that the correspondence which the noble Lord had entered into with the French government would show, that he had been urgent in this matter on the French government. Still he was aware, that it was a matter very fit to be pressed on the attention of the House of Commons, more especially as five years had now elapsed since the damage had been done. The French government was more reluctant than ever he was sorry to say, to entertain the proposition of compensation, and had shown nothing like an inclination to accord satisfaction any more now, than when at first the matter was inquired into. Such conduct, uninquired into, and unredressed, tended to inflict on British commerce a feeling of insecurity of a most injurious description. He would not long detain the House, but would conclude with impressing on the House, the necessity of taking some steps on the question.
Viscount Palmerstonsaid, when this question was brought forward last year, he had stated that he was fully sensible of the importance of the matter. He was at the time in negotiation with the French Government on the subject of the claims made for compensation by the parties who were sufferers, and he had been in hopes that before any further inquiry would have been entered into substantial redress would have been made. He had to state, that the discussion between the two Governments on the subject had not yet been brought to a conclusion. He undoubtedly agreed with his right hon. Friend, not only in the statement of facts, but also in the opinion that he had expressed, that wrong had been done to British subjects, for which they

727
were entitled to compensation at the hands of the Government of France. That being the opinion of Government, that opinion had been conveyed to the Government of France, and they had endeavoured to satisfy and convince the Government of France of the justice of the claims they had made. The Government of France had not yet admitted that those wrongs of which they complained had been inflicted on English subjects. The French Government had stated also that which was not satisfactory to her Majesty's Government; they had contended that their officers were borne out in what they had done, and that consequently there was no ground of claim on the French Government. Now the reasons alleged by the Government of France did not appear to her Majesty's Government to be sufficient or satisfactory; and (her Majesty's Government) were continuing to press on the French Government reasons, which in their opinion, conclusively established the claims which some English subjects had made on the Government of France. Now, that being the state of the case, the discussion being still pending between the Government, he was persuaded that on the one hand, his right hon. Friend who had made the motion, and the hon. Gentleman who had supported it, would feel that it would not be consistent with Parliamentary practice, and not advantageous, but on the contrary, that it would be disadvantageous to the public interests, if he were to yield to the motion his right hon. Friend had made, and consent to the production of those papers; because it was never the custom of the House to insist for the production of papers while discussions were pending between the English Government and a foreign power, and especially when the discussion related to such a question. And for the same reason, he was convinced that the House would be of opinion that it would not be fitting for him to enter into any examination of the facts and arguments of the case, or that it would be proper for him to state the grounds on which they thought the claims were just, or to enter into an examination of the grounds brought forward for refusing the claim. He would assure the House that her Majesty's Government were fully impressed with the importance of this case, both as regarded the interests of the parties concerned and as regarded also
728
the general interests of the commerce of this country; and he could assure the House that no endeavours should be wanting on the part of the Government to convince the French Government of what they considered a just and proper claim. And although it might be understood that Government were slow to admit the justice of claims which, being admitted, not only proved them to have committed a wrong, but also proved that reparation was due from them, still he was satisfied that the Government of France had much too great respect for itself and for the great country whose affairs were intrusted to its hands, not to be ready to give full reparation whenever it should be satisfied that that reparation was just.
Alderman Thompsonsaid, he must beg leave to offer a few observations in reply to what had fallen from the noble Lord. He was against calling for correspondence generally in such a case, but this was a case per se. For what were the facts? This negotiation had been going on for the period of four years. Nine months ago they had been told that the question had assumed a character which would lead to a satisfactory termination. Now, the noble Lord stated, that all his efforts had been unsuccessful to satisfy the French Government of the justice of those claims. The French denied that they had done any wrong. Now, under such a state of things, and viewing the great importance of this question—for it was not a question of an individual having been permanently affected by these outrages, great as the inconvenience had been which the parties must of necessity have sustained, as every commercial man must be aware, to have so large a sum as £.100,000 abstracted from their capital for a period of four years; but it was not on that ground only that redress was required, but there was the permanent injury to commerce. He saw no reason why that House should not take effectual means to recover proper compensation. It did appear to him, therefore, that the correspondence and despatches ought to be produced. He thought, from the statement of the noble Lord himself, that he ought to produce this correspondence, in order to satisfy the House and the country that no efforts had been left untried to settle the question. It was well known that the object of France was to get possession of the entire coast of Africa, and this outrage had

729
been really committed for the purpose of annoying British commerce, and not with the view of redressing any wrong done to France by the Trazars. He, therefore, did think that this was a case which required the interference of Parliament, and he despaired of redress unless by the intervention of that House.
Mr. Hawessaid, on the admission of the noble Lord of the state of the case, the country had a right to know what chance there was of obtaining any speedy redress, particularly when it was added, and he spoke correctly, that the last communication from the French Government was an absolute denial of our claim, so late as July last. In what state was our trade there at present? Was there any protection given to it now? Were we able to carry on the trade? Had our traders the protection of an armed force? and if so, how was it that up to this moment the aggression, of which complaint was made, had succeeded in extinguishing our trade? He thought there was ample proof that the Foreign Government had not been attentive to the interests of our trade. British merchants could not go on trading from year to year, as the French Government had absolutely denied the claim, and consequently made it unsafe to trade. He must say, he thought the Government was bound to take more effective measures to enforce attention to its demands than the noble Lord had indicated that the Government bad thought proper to take. There was one question which must force itself on their attention—it was, to what extent were our merchants to put up with French interference with our commerce, and to what extent were they to put up with interference in despite of treaties and express statements to the contrary? He said, that they ought not to acquiesce in apathy to aggressions on the part of the French, whether in Africa, or on the coast of Mexico, until the French had obtained establishments which would effectually compete with our trade. These were surely aggressions which the House ought not to allow the Government to pass over He spoke the sense of the whole mercantile community when he said, that peace could not long exist between the two countries if these successive aggressions went on. The whole responsibility rested with the noble Lord: from him they had a clear right to demand the state of the present negotiation.
Mr. Humesaid, after the great patience which had been exhibited, it behoved Government to lay the papers on the Table. He admitted the degree of patience which every public officer ought to exercise; but he thought the noble Lord was not dealing fairly with the merchant. He did not think any other country, America, for instance, would put up with such delay. He believed, if the President came to the resolution, honestly and fairly, that this was a just and honest claim, that he would send it down to the House and ask their opinion on the subject. And what did the noble Lord? He said it was not a good example. He (Mr. Hume) thought it was; and that the noble Lord, after his speech, had good ground for such a precedent.
Viscount Palmerstonbegged to say one word in explanation. He thought he must have been misunderstood when it was said that he had stated, that the French Government absolutely denied the justice of the claim. If the case were in that state, he should admit that there was ground for the production of the papers; but what he had stated was, that the French Government had not admitted the justice of our claim, but considered it was a question still under discussion. With regard to the point alluded to by his hon. Friend the Member for Lambeth, who seemed to think that there was no protection afforded to the trade to Portendic, every season they had sent armed vessels to that point, and he had no reason to believe it true that the ceasing of the British importation of gum was owing to any want of naval protection to commerce there.
Mr. Hume: Would the noble Lord state what naval force there was there to give protection?
Viscount Palmerstonsaid, the gum trade was carried on at certain seasons of the year; and at that particular season of the year one or two ships of war, as the case might he, had been sent there; and he was not aware that that protection had been inadequate.
Sir R. Peelwished to ask a question, which was not altogether unconnected with the matter before the House. It related to the seizure of the pilot on board the Express packet. It would be in the recollection of the House, that when this subject was before the House, on a former occasion, he had ventured to predict, that

731
the French Government would give that prompt, frank, and satisfactory explanation of the affair, which became the Government of a great nation. That prediction, he was glad to perceive, had been fully verified. The honorable manner in which that explanation had been voluntarily given was, of course, satisfactory to this country, and by it France had set an excellent example to us to follow, under similar circumstances. But in that explanation, as it appeared to him, it was stated that the Express packet had been mistaken for a merchant vessel. Now what he wanted to know from the noble Lord was, whether it was admitted to imply that a blockading force could take a pilot from a merchant vessel, having the flag of its nation flying, and whether the English Government would not consider that the same protection should be extended to its flag on board a merchant ship, as to any of its vessels of war?
Viscount Palmerstonadmitted, that there was no difference between the protection which should be extended to our flag flying in a merchant vessel, and to one of our ships of war, and an insult to that flag, would be as great a violation of our rights in a merchant-ship as in a ship of war, but the letter from Count Sebastiani stated, that the French was not aware at the time that the Express belonged to our royal navy, but he did not even know that she belonged to the British marine—a term which, in its French acceptation would include merchant vessels, as well as ships of war; and Count Sebastiani stated to him, that that term was advisedly used as meaning that vessels of both classes were equally entitled to protection.
Sir R. Peel—it was then clearly understood, that we contended for the perfect right of protection to our flag in merchant-vessels, as well as to our ships of war?
Lord Palmerston—The only difference would be, that an attempt of the same kind on a ship of war, might lead to a more immediate collision, and tend to bring the question to a more speedy issue; but, in point of national right, there was no difference whatever between the protection to our flag on board vessels of either kind.
Mr. Philip Howarddid not oppose the motion of the right hon. Gentleman, from any wish to under-rate the grievances and injuries sustained by British merchants,
732
but because it could not be gainsayed that a severe shock would be given to representative governments, if it were found impossible safely to negociate with them. If the English House of Commons, and the French Chambre des Députes forced their Governments to give up state papers pending negotiations, the peace of the world, which depended frequently on diplomatic honour and confidence, would, on many occasions, be placed in needless peril; and, as in this instance, a transient advantage would be dearly bought by a precedent productive of lasting inconvenience. The injuries which had been inflicted on English merchants was, in this case, of no trifling moment; the supercargoes of two vessels, the "Industry," and the "Governor Temple," had been imprisoned, the British flag fired upon, and it would behove the honour and justice of the French monarch, and the French people, to make good the injury sustained by unoffending merchants, and that the French Government would make reparation with the frankness which had marked its proceedings in the case of Mexico, when a wrong inflicted had been clearly proven, could not be doubted. He (Mr. Howard) might add, that the present state of the French ministry was a reason for not then pressing the motion to a division. Once fairly planted in office, the noble Secretary for Foreign Affairs might fairly, and he was sure he would earnestly, challenge attention to this subject. The hon. Member for Lambeth had, in some degree, overstated the case of the French occupation of Algiers: on reference to the correspondence which had passed on the subject between the Earl of Aberdeen and the Prince de Polignac, on the subject; he would find, that the latter had stated, "that in the event of the dissolution of the Government of the Dey of Algiers consequent upon the struggle between the troops of his most Christian Majesty, and the rulers of that state, the French monarch would concert with his allies, as to the occupation of that territory—and the result had been, that the French Government on giving a pledge, not to pass a stated line on each side—had been allowed to retain that portion of the soil of Africa, as a colony of France; but the coast line so to be occupied, had been strictly defined and limited by subsequent declarations. It would be inferring much weakness and vacillation on the part of the sovereigns of

733
the allied powers, to lay it down unconditionally, that formal possession had been taken of that part of Africa, by the French, without some understanding as to the limits of their jurisdiction.
Sir S. Luskington,in reply, said, that he was glad that his statement of the facts in this case had been received with approbation by the. House. At the same time he felt himself placed in a situation of considerable embarrassment. He had, in fact, nothing to reply to, and the question he had brought before the House was in the same state as if he had not opened his lips on it. He had got from his noble Friend the Secretary for Foreign Affairs, the same assurances on this occasion which had been given to him in August, 1838. He regretted that when this matter occurred in 1835 it had not been taken up by Parliament. If it had been noticed in the same spirit which had been manifested by Parliament in the case of the Express Packet, there was no doubt that long before the present time it would have been brought to a satisfactory conclusion. The question, though one of importance in a pecuniary point of view to the parties concerned, did not derive its chief importance from that circumstance. The great question for the Government and for the House to consider was, whether the commander of a French vessel, by his own power and authority, could seize British vessels and imprison British subjects, with impunity. That was the question which should form the main subject for consideration. The pecuniary question was not unimportant; though owing to the high rank and great respectability of the merchants concerned, the loss sustained could be borne, yet to others in less affluent circumstances it might have brought utter ruin. Under the circumstances stated by his noble Friend, he felt that he ought not to press his motion at present, but if he should now refrain from urging the production of the papers it would be on two grounds. The first, that it was not usual with that House to call for the production of correspondence on a subject on which negotiations were still pending; and, secondly, his firm hope that now a more forcible appeal would be made by the Queen's Government to that of France, backed as it would be, not only by the strong approbation of the House of Commons, but also by the general feeling of the British
734
people. With such support, he did earnestly hope that the opportunity of making this forcible appeal would not be lost by the Government. On these considerations he would withdraw his motion.
Sir E. Codringtonsaid, that if the old custom of having ships of war stationed in those places where British trade to any extent was carried on had been adhered to in the present case, we should never have heard of such complaints as these.
Motion withdrawn.

HARBOURS ON THE SOUTH-EASTERN COAST.
Mr. E. Rice rose,pursuant to the notice he had given, to move an address for an inquiry into the state of the Harbours on the South-eastern coast. The question was one which had met the approbation of all the distinguished naval officers in and out of that House with whom he had conversed. It was the more necessary that our south-eastern harbours should be placed in a fit and safe state for the reception of vessels, as we were about to have a greatly increased intercourse with the continent. A line of rail-road from London to Dover had received the sanction of the Legislature, and was now in a state of considerable forwardness; and a line of railroad from Calais and Boulogne to Paris had received the sanction of the French Chambers. When these were completed, it was natural to expect a vast increase of intercourse between London and Paris, and other parts of the Continent. Under these circumstances, the condition of our south-eastern harbours was a matter of considerable importance. He did not wish by his motion to pledge the Government to any outlay of money; all he wanted at present was, an examination of the condition of those harbours by scientific men. He had brought forward this motion as the representative of a port where the necessity of such improvement was greatly felt.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerdid not wish to throw any difficulty in the way of the hon. Member's proposition. It was highly important that both Government and Parliament should have the best information that skill and science could give on this subject; but he wished it to be distinctly understood to what extent he was willing to go, because, if undue expectations were excited respecting this inquiry, and if it were thought that

735
Government would expend large sums of money in obtaining information respecting these harbours, the result would be to paralyse all private and local efforts for effecting the object in contemplation. In consenting, therefore, to this inquiry, he wished it to be clearly understood that it was only so far that he would go, and no further. The first point was to consider the present state of the harbours, and the next would be to consider the best mode of improving them; the latter, however, would depend upon local questions; and the greatest good that could be done was to give the persons locally connected with them the best information that could be obtained.
Mr. Alderman Thompsonthought, that this was a great national subject of inquiry, and wished to know why the proposed inquiry should not be extended further. The north-eastern coast was, as to navigation, much more dangerous than the south-eastern, and he should, therefore, move, that after the words "south-eastern coast" in the original motion, the words "and north-eastern coast" be added.
Sir E. Codringtonsaid, he had risen before to second the original motion, but had given way to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The difference between the original motion and the amendment in his opinion was this—that if war arose, it was in the narrow seas more especially, that harbours of refuge were required, because, in the present state of steam navigation, steamers could run over very rapidly. To call upon the Government, therefore, to go into an inquiry as to any other part of the coast than the south-eastern, was, as he thought, unnecessary at the present time.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, that if the amendment were carried, every portion of the coast would be a proper subject for inquiry. It would be much better, and he would put it to the hon. Member opposite, to allow the inquiry first proposed to be completed, and, when the result of that was known, then to consider the necessity of extending it. He should, therefore, oppose the amendment, more especially as the hon. and gallant Member behind him had shown a difference between that and the original motion, from the circumstance of refuge harbours being more required in the narrow seas in case of war than in any other part.
Mr. Plantaconsidered it most important that inquiry should be made into the present state of our harbours. He happened to be living on the very coast respecting the state of which inquiry was now proposed, and during the last autumn not less than six ships had been wrecked because there was no refuge port for them to put into between Dungeness and Beachy Head. He might, if necessary, also quote the opinion of the illustrious Warden of the Cinque Ports in favour of inquiry into this subject, and thought that it was more satisfactory that Government should make this inquiry than to leave it to a committee. The present motion, if it were carried, would produce great practical good, and he was delighted to find, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had at once so fairly, and he might say so cordially, given to it his assent. With respect to the amendment, he would say, with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, "let this inquiry he gone into first, and when the result was known, then extend it further, if necessary."
Mr. A. Whiteconsidered this an important inquiry, and that it must be advantageous, but thought the north-eastern coast equally well deserving of consideration, and he therefore hoped the Chancellor of the Exchequer would agree to the amendment.
The Solicitor-Generalsaid, that in case the amendment was adopted, he should certainly propose to extend it to the south western coast.
Mr. F. Hodgson,if that were proposed, should be most happy to support it, as one part of the coast ought not to be favoured over others.
Mr. Darbysaid, that upon the coast referred to in the original motion, this question bad been considered of vast importance, and he felt great obligation to the hon. Member opposite for bringing it forward, and to the Chancellor of the Exchequer for so readily acceding to it. He hoped, however, that his hon. Friend near him (Mr. Alderman Thompson), and also the Solicitor-General, would not press their amendment, as there was a great difference, on account of the narrow seas, between the south-eastern coast and any other part.
Sir T. Troubridgewas most anxious that the House should come to a decision, and he must thank the hon. Member for having brought it forward, and the Chan-

737
cellor of the Exchequer for having seconded it. He thought there was a great necessity for inquiry as to the state of the harbours on the south-eastern coast, and he hoped the House would throw no impediment in the way; but if the amendment were carried, the inquiry might as well be extended to all the coasts of England, Scotland and Ireland.
Mr. Peasethought the House was taking too light and superficial a view respecting the north-eastern coast; for there were twenty vessels passing along that coast for every one that went down the Channel. The south-eastern coast in a great measure relied upon the aid of Government, whilst the north-eastern coast had depended on its own private resources, and had expended thousands, he might say millions, in making the harbours efficient. He agreed, therefore, with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that Government interference should only be carried to a certain extent, and not so far as to do away with the exertions of individuals locally connected with the parts of the coast inquired into. At the same time, if the amendment were lost, he hoped the Government would consider the state of the harbours on the north-eastern coast as well as on the south-eastern.
Amendment withdrawn, original motion agreed to.

COMMERCIAL RELATIONS WITH DENMARK.
Mr. Gibsonrose to move an address for "copies of any despatches or correspondence that may have passed between the British mission at Copenhagen, and her Majesty's Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, relative to the duties and fees lately imposed by Denmark upon the transit of goods between Hamburgh and Lubeck." Before he discussed the question how far he was justified by circumstances in calling for this information, he would briefly state the nature of the communication between Hamburgh and Lubeck, and the manner in which the tolls levied there acted upon British interests. That road constituted the shortest communication between the North or German Ocean and the Baltic, and a sort of highway for commerce between that sea and the west of Europe, by which a long voyage round the Sound was saved. Up to the present time this road had been free from all tolls and duties whatever, and, as there were parts of the year when the
738
navigation of the Sound was dangerous, the freedom of this road was of particular importance to the commerce of Europe, and especially of Great Britain. During the years 1836 and 1837, a considerable quantity of the staple articles of British industry passed along this road on their way towards the Baltic Sea, and into it, commerce was more and more diverging every day, because the danger of a voyage round the Sound was thereby saved, and both the duration of the voyage and the rates of insurance decreased. In 1838, a proposal was published at Copenhagen to place tolls on the transit of goods between Hamburgh and Lubeck. It was not stated that these tolls were intended as a compensation for anything that had been done by the Danish Government for the purpose of making the road passable, which had continued in a most execrable condition under the dominion of Denmark. An exemption from tolls to a certain extent was also proposed with regard to foreign produce, so that their imposition was inconsistent not only with the spirit, but with the letter of the treaties between this country and Denmark. The proposal at Copenhagen in 1838 was to levy a duty of ten schillings currency on every 1 cwt. of goods going from Hamburgh to Lubeck, and only five schillings on the same weight going from Lubeck to Hamburgh. Now it was manifest that the former rate would be imposed on British produce, and the latter on Russian and Prussian produce. In point of fact, this was an imposition of discriminating duties in favour of Russia, and a violation of the contracts of former treaties, by which all discriminating duties was abrogated. At the same time it was proposed to exempt the staple articles of Russian and Prussian produce from all duties, though not as Russian and Prussian produce; and it was settled that the new arrangement should come into force on the 1st January, 1839. A few days before that period, however, another proclamation was made by the Danish Government, notifying that the intention of levying double duties was given up, and. the tolls on goods, whether going to or from Lubeck, would be equalized; but the exception in favour of Russian and Prussian produce was persisted in, while, in spite of the existence of treaties of reciprocity, abrogating all discriminating duties, tolls were levied on British goods. This was a state of things which called for

739
some explanation from the Government. Perhaps he should be told by the noble Viscount that there might be some old treaties giving to Russia a right of way along this road, and that consequently she was exempted from duties. Then, that if that were the case, why was not the produce of Russia exempted expressly as such, instead of being arranged that hemp, tallow, corn, &c. which were also the produce of other northern countries, should be free from toll? He would now briefly state to the House the nature of the treaties concluded between this country and Denmark. The last treaty was concluded in 1824, and it opened by a declaration on the part of the contracting parties that all discriminating duties should be abrogated. By article thirteen of the Treaty of Commerce all the ancient treaties of peace and commerce between England and Denmark were renewed in the fullest extent, so far as they were not inconsistent with the stipulations of that treaty. Among those ancient treaties were the treaty of 1670, and the treaty of 1660. By the former it was provided that the merchants of Great Britain should not be subject to greater dues than those imposed on other foreigners in the territories of Denmark; and by the latter it was agreed that if the Dutch or any other nation, the Swedish alone excepted, should ever obtain from Denmark better terms in respect of the imposition of dues, the same should be extended in favour of the subjects of England. Having stated the nature of the stipulations between this country and Denmark, he did not mean to say, that jurists might not be able to put such a construction on them as would reconcile them with the facts he had mentioned; but still he maintained he had made out a primâ facie case for calling on Ministers for explanation. It was for the Government who had the care of the commercial interests of the nation, to state how they could reconcile the imposition of this duty on British goods with our treaties of reciprocity. Vettel laid it down that a country abused its territorial right if it levied a duty on the transit of goods which was not in compensation for advantage rendered to the transit, such, for instance, as the repair of the road. There were various reasons alleged why the duty he now complained of was imposed on British goods. One reason was, commerce was flowing into the line between Hamburgh and Lubeck, and that it was
740
apprehended that the Sound dues would not last a great while longer. It was known that Russia, Prussia, and other countries were at the present moment protesting against the amount of the Sound dues, the rate of which was asserted to be higher than was justified by the original treaty, if any such existed. Well, then, Denmark, feeling all these questions rising up, and placing her Sound duties in jeopardy, felt it advisable to place the same duties upon goods passing through her German territories, and to impose the same duties upon goods going into the Baltic, as were imposed upon goods going through the Sound. But he did not see how that circumstance afforded a justification to Denmark, since it appeared to him that it was no plea for raising the transit duties between Hamburgh and Lubeck, that the Sound duties were excessively high. He hoped that the House would hear, from the noble Viscount, that he was protesting in common with other countries against the Sound duties, and also against the Stade duties, imposed by the King of Hanover, to the manifest injury of British commerce, and in direct violation of the treaty of Vienna. He hoped, also, that they would not be told that Hamburgh and Lubeck, being free cities, had referred this question to the German Confederation, and that it was now under the consideration of that body. He had no doubt that the German Confederation would come to a correct decision upon the question thus submitted to them, but it might be five or ten years, or even half a century, before it was finally settled. He hoped that this question would be dealt with as one affecting British interests, and not as in any degree depending upon the view taken of it by the German Confederation. The question was, whether British goods were to pay those duties at all, and whether it was consistent with existing treaties that they should have been imposed. Although he had reason to believe that owing to the remonstrance made by her Majesty's Government to the Government of Denmark a concession had been made by the equalization of the duties on goods passing front Lubeck to Hamburgh, and from Hamburgh to Lubeck, yet that concession was a concession in appearance only, because the duties were even now so high that all trade had been stopped in that direction. Persons now went a considerable circuit round rather than make themselves sub-

741
ject to the heavy duty which they would otherwise have to pay. He wished also that the noble Viscount would explain how it happened that lower duties were levied on Russian than on British goods. Having said thus much, he would not detain the House any longer, and would therefore conclude by placing his motion in the Speaker's hands.
Viscount Palmerstonobserved, that the question to which the hon. Gentleman had directed the attention of the House had for some months past engaged the attention of her Majesty's Government. In August last her Majesty's Government understood, that it was the intention of the Danish government to impose transit dues on goods passing between the Baltic and the North Sea—between Lubeck and Hamburgh, and that that duty, as the hon. Gentleman had stated, was not to be equal with reference to the direction in which goods were passing, but was to be doubled on goods passing to the Baltic as compared with goods passing from the Baltic. The question to be considered was, whether the Danish government had an abstract right to impose these transit duties. He was afraid that there was no ground upon which they could deny the right which belonged to every independent State to impose a transit duty upon goods passing through its territory, provided always, that that duty was moderate and equal only to the services performed by the country by which it was imposed, and provided also, that it was equal in its amount and operation as applied to all nations. Now, as related to the dues in question, the British Government first of all objected to the inequality of the duty, founded upon the direction in which goods were passing, and they made strong representations against that inequality, because it was obvious, that goods passing from the Baltic were deriving an advantage in the English market which was denied to goods passing from the British dominions to the markets of the Baltic. The result of these representations was, that in December last the Danish government informed the Government of this country of its intention to equalize the duty, by reducing the higher dues between Hamburgh and Lubeck to the lower rate of dues imposed between Lubeck and F1arnburgh; that was to say, that whereas 10 schillings were originally imposed the one way, and 5 schillings the other, hereafter the duty
742
was to be 5 schillings both ways. So far, undoubtedly, the concession of the Danish government was satisfactory; but it then appeared, that there was another principle of inequality (which had also been adverted to by the hon. Gentleman opposite), namely, that the duty was not to apply to all commodities—(not that there was any exception specifically of the goods coming from any particular country)—but that a certain description of commodities was to be exempted, those commodities happening to be those only which came from a particular country. That was to say, that the goods which were the staple commodities of Russia and other countries bordering upon the Baltic were exempted from any duty, whilst the goods which were the staple commodity of England were subjected to a very considerable duty. Upon the subject of that inequality the British Government again remonstrated, and that question was still under discussion between the two governments. The peculiar point at issue was one that ought not to escape the attention of the House, because the duty was not a discriminating duty in terms, inasmuch as it was not in favour of goods coming from any specified quarter; but practically, and in point of fact, it was a discriminating duty, because it favoured (without specifying the country) the importation of the productions of Russia to the prejudice of the importation of the productions of Great Britain. He should have no objection to produce that part of the correspondence which related to that branch of the question which had been brought to a final issue, namely, the communications between the Danish and British Governments which had led to the removal of the inequality previously existing between the transit of goods in one direction and the transit of goods in the other direction through the provinces of Denmark; but he thought the House would see that, according to the invariable principle which operated with those engaged in the public service, it was not advisable or expedient to produce that part of the correspondence which related to unsettled questions—to matters still in abeyance. Whenever those questions were arranged he should be perfectly ready to produce all the correspondence which related to them. It had been stated by the hon. Gentleman, that the duty lately imposed by the government of Denmark was the more unjusti-

743
fiable, because no service had, in point of fact, been rendered for it, the road between Hamburgh and Lubeck being, from neglect, wholly unfit for the purposes of commerce. He certainly thought, that if the duty were persisted in, other countries, whose merchandise was to travel that way, had a right to expect, that a reasonably good road should be maintained over the short distance that their goods had to pass. It would, indeed, be the interest of Denmark to do so, because, as the hon. Gentleman had very truly stated, the merchants who previously transmitted their goods by the road between Hamburgh and Lubeck, in consequence of the high rate of duties lately imposed were about to adopt a route which, though somewhat longer, would be infinitely less expensive. So that if Denmark, with a notoriously bad road, chose to keep up a high rate of duty, it was plain, that in a short time she would not have it in her power to collect any duty at all. There was, however, a preliminary question pending, to which the hon. Member had also alluded, namely, the right of Denmark to levy this duty at all—not the right of levying it as regarded this country, or as arising out of any interpretation of treaties between England and Denmark, but the right of Denmark to levy such a duty founded upon ancient treaties between her and the Hanse Towns. That was a question upon which it was not then necessary for him to pronounce a decided opinion; but it was not upon that ground that he objected to the production of the whole of the correspondence moved for by the hon. Gentleman. He rested his objection to that motion upon the ground that negotiations were still pending upon the subject. The hon. Gentleman wished to know whether, in the opinion of Government, the duty could be leviable consistently with the treaties of reciprocity between Denmark and England. Now he (Lord Palmerston) should apprehend, that those treaties of reciprocity could not be considered as a bar to the levying of this duty, provided it were an equal duty, and levied only as a fair remuneration for services actually performed. The stipulation contained in treaties of that kind was generally this:—"That goods brought into the ports of one country direct from another should not pay a higher duty in consequence of their being brought in ships of a foreign country." The House
744
would perceive that that was a question distinct form that to which the hon. Gentleman's motions related. Undoubtedly as related to the Sound dues, there had of late been mooted a question of considerable importance. It was this—whether the dues levied by Denmark were not greater than by existing treaties and ancient usage she was entitled to. He begged to decline expressing at present any decided opinion upon that point; but he begged to assure the House, that the attention of the Government was directed to it, and that they should feel it their duty to ascertain what appeared to be the just right of Denmark in that particular; and if it should appear that she was exacting an amount of dues beyond that to which she was fully entitled, steps would be taken to induce her to reduce them to the fair and proper level. With respect to the state duties, it would certainly appear, that they had of late been levied in a higher degree and in a more vexatious manner upon the productions of this country. Upon that subject, however, her Majesty's Government was in communication with the government of Hanover, and whenever those communications were brought to a close either one way or the other, he should be ready to give every information with respect to them that might be desired. That, therefore, which upon the present occasion he would suggest to the hon. Gentleman, not in the least wishing to withhold form the House any information which could be given upon the subject at the present moment, without really injuring the object which all must have in view—that which he would suggest to the hon. Member would be this—to limit his motion at present to an address for copies or extracts of any correspondence between the Secretary for Foreign Affairs and her Majesty's minister at Copenhagen, upon the subject of equalizing the transit duties on good passing between Lubeck and Hamburgh. He would then produce the papers which related to that part of the subject. He would either move this as an amendment, or leave it to the hon. Member to adopt it as his motion.
Mr. Humethough the statement just made by the noble Lord satisfactory, and he would recommend the hon. Gentleman to comply with the noble Lord's suggestion.
Mr. A. Chapmanthought, that the

745
Sound dues were very fair, and that it would be impossible for the Danish government to furnish light-houses and other safe-guards to navigation in those dangerous seas without them.
Mr. Peasediffered from the hon. Gentleman who had just sat down. The Sound dues were most enormous—far exceeding any sums expended by the Danish government for the protection of navigation, and were most grievously oppressive upon British commerce. The same observations applied to the dues recently imposed upon the transit of goods between Lubeck and Hamburgh.
Mr. Gibsonconsented to adopt the amendment proposed by the noble Lord. Motion in the amended form agreed to.

CASE OF MR. DILLON.
Sir Francis Burdett,in bringing before the House the case of Mr. Dillon, whose petition was presented on the 27th of March last, observed, that if there were any one thing more important than another to the navy, it was, that all deserving officers and men should receive the rewards which they had well earned. Mr. Dillon, the petitioner in the present case, had been nine years a master mariner in the royal navy, and had afterwards served in the coast guard, in a situation which required good seamanship, much courage, and a great deal of judgment, skill, and discretion. It appeared, that he had performed all the duties of this situation with ability, skill, and courage, that he did not omit anything that zeal could prompt, or that courage guided by prudence could achieve. Mr. Dillon having the command of a boat engaged in the coast-guard service at Mill Cove Harbour, in the county of Cork, surprised and chased a smuggler of very superior size, crowded with men, and well armed, drove her from Mill Cove Harbour, where she evidently intended to make a landing, and compelled her, by the closeness of his pursuit, to seek for refuge in the harbour of Kinsale, where she was captured, and ultimately condemned. Immediately after the transaction, Mr. Dillon received a letter from the Treasury, expressing the highest approbation of his conduct, but much litigation ensued before the smuggler was finally condemned. Meanwhile Mr. Dillon entered the merchant service and sailed to the West Indies, where he remained for upwards of four years, and it was not
746
until after his return that he heard of any charge having been made against him, or of any objection being raised to his receiving his due share of the rich prize which he had been the direct and immediate means of throwing into the hands of the tide waiter at Kinsale. He understood that, by an Act of Parliament, it was required that the names of all vessels condemned should be published in the Gazette. Whether from accident or not, he knew not; but that form, in the present instance, was omitted, and the consequence was, that Mr. Dillon was not aware of the condemnation of the vessel till his return. He then found that the sum adjudged to the tide-waiter at Kinsale for the seizure of the vessel amounted to upwards of 11,000 l. It was quite clear, that if any body had a title to that sum, it was Mr. Dillon. He accordingly made his claim; and then, for the first time, he heard that there had been a charge made against him of cowardice for not boarding the vessel. He immediately applied to have an inquiry instituted into that charge, because Mr. Dillon conceived (and as he thought, rightly conceived) that there was no other possible ground for refusing to him his share of this large prize. In consequence of this application Lord Althorp directed that the whole of the papers, &c., connected with the affair, should be referred to Sir Edward Codrington; and, after a full examination of all the circumstances of the case, that gallant Officer reported that Mr. Dillon was highly justified in the course he had pursued. After the reference he looked upon his claim as settled, and he wrote to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to that effect, and Mr. Drummond in his reply, dated April 7, 1833, stated that the question would be re-considered. Mr. Dillon, however, objected to any revision, and wrote another letter, expostulating with the Government on the hardships of a revision of what he had understood to be a final adjustment. He then received a letter from Lord Althorp, in which he stated, that he was surprised that the claim had not been long since settled. Unfortunately, Lord Althorp did not remain long in office after that, and for some reason the claim had been never settled, for if the law of the case were clear, and if the facts were as he had stated them, he did not see why it should not be settled. As Mr. Dillon was very tender upon the point, whether he was or

747
was not an excellent seaman, he had written to Admiral Sir George Martin, to Admiral Sir Robert Stopford, and to Admiral Sir P. Durham, and they said, that, relying on the correctness of the statement of his case, they thought that he had exculpated himself from the charge against him. The only suspicion that could rest anywhere was with the Board of Customs, but he had never been called before the board to make his defence, and bow could they show that the claim could be with reason or with decency rejected? The Government, after agreeing that Mr. Dillon's character was irreproachable, had made an offer of a grant of 50 l. But how could they reconcile this offer with the refusal of the claim? If Mr. Dillon were culpable, why did they give him 50 l.? For, if he were culpable, he ought to have been tried or called to account, and he would have been happy to have been called to account. But why did they give him 50 l.?—they acknowledged that he had cleared himself of what stood in the way of his claim, and yet they deprived him of his due reward for his skill and courage on that tempestuous sea. The case had been already taken up by many Members of Parliament, and Mr. Hardy, who was one, wrote to Mr. Dillon, saying, that on representing the case to the Chancellor of the Exchequr, the latter complained that Mr. Dillon had not made his claim immediately, but he went to the West Indies, which prevented his following the claim up at the time, and he could not afford to lose his professional gains into the bargain. If his were a just and good claim, surely this was not a very honourable answer that the claim had not been made for two years. The case seemed to him, though not very extensive, to be very strong. Was Mr. Dillon guilty of the charges brought against him? if he were not, had he not a legal right to the prize money? if not, had he had a trial either one way or another? and if there had been no trial why was his claim disallowed? He firmly believed all the statements which had been made, and he only wished the Chancellor of the Exchequer to allow the case to be brought before a competent tribunal. He would conclude by moving that a select committee be appointed to examine the merits of the petition of Mr. Dillon.
The Chancellor of the Exchequertook the liberty of very humbly asking the
748
attention of the House to the facts of this case, not merely for the justification of the Government, but of the House of Commons itself; not alone on his own behalf, but on the behalf of Lord Spencer and those with whom he had had the honour of being connected, and on behalf, also, of the governments which had preceded the late and the present Government, and whose conduct was equally impugned. If there was the shadow of a claim on the part of this Gentleman, and he would not use a word of disrespect towards him, he was willing to treat him as was assumed by the hon. Baronet, as a deserving officer pressing claims upon the public. He must say, that as these claims had been before the House of Commons on two several occasions if there had been any denial of justice it had been on the part of the House of Commons itself. He stood there, however, to assert that there had been no denial of justice. The hon. Baronet had stated the case in the only way he could from the representations of the individual himself, and it was therefore no imputation on him to say, that he had only the means of forming an ex parte view of the case; and he (the Chancellor of the Exchequer) must take the liberty of stating to the House that, with reference to the present motion, he had acted as he had done upon all former occasions towards other Members, he had communicated with the hon. Baronet by letter, stating that every one of the papers in this case were at the Treasury, open to the hon. Baronet, and that he might inspect every document. If the hon. Baronet had inspected them he would not then have been placed in the situation of reasoning ex parte; he would have known all the facts and their bearing, and would have had an opportunity of ascertaining whether this gentleman's case were correct or not. He did not complain that the hon. Baronet had not accepted his offer, but as he had not accepted it, he could not complain if he had been made the victim of a delusive statement as to this transaction. The transaction occurred in 1822. The interval which had since elapsed, he would not say, was a bar to the claim; but at least, when an interval of sixteen years had occurred, it cast somewhat of suspicion on the case. For what changes of Government had since occurred? What if a gentleman had had an opportunity for so long a time of apply-

749
ing to the heads of the proper offices, if he could have brought his case before a court of law, if he could have profited by the professional authority under which he was acting, if he could have applied to the Treasury, which had repeatedly changed hands; if he could have applied to the government of Lord Liverpool; to the government of Lord Grey; to the government of the Duke of Wellington; to the government of Sir Robert Peel, and to the government of Lord Melbourne; and if all those governments had expressed an opinion upon the subject? Mr. Dillon had applied to each successive government, and though they did not agree in other matters, they agreed as to the claim of Mr. Dillon, and they had all utterly rejected that claim. Mr. Dillon's own story was this:—In 1822 he was stationed on the southern coast of Ireland: he had a bad crew, in which he had no confidence; and what did he do? On the 15th of February, 1822, "when the wind was blowing very strong, and there was a heavy sea," Mr. Dillon set out with saying, and not having any orders to go to sea in such circumstances, he went to sea notwithstanding; not to interrupt any smugglers, but with the single motive of impressing on the minds of his crew that they were to do their duty. When he was out he met with a certain ship called the Peru. He came up with her, and finding that he had not strength to cope with her, and as was affirmed by the judgment of Sir Edward Codrington, he had a sufficient justification in not boarding a vessel of such superior force. But he said, that though he had not sufficient force to board her, yet that he fired so many shots at her as to compel her to go into Kinsale, where she was taken. And then came down the hon. Baronet with the law of the case, and said, that because Mr. Dillon had fired these shots, that therefore he had driven the ship into Kinsale, that therefore she was taken, and that therefore Mr. Dillon was entitled to the prize-money. But so far from the vessel being compelled to go into Kinsale in consequence of the exertions of Mr. Dillon, she had been out in a gale of wind and had sprung a leak. The master wanted to go to France, but the crew rose against him, and carried the vessel against his wishes into the port of Kinsale; and being in that port, an adjudication took place, and condemnation having been made, the cargo was sold.
750
This occurred in 1822, and though the hon. Baronet spoke of Mr. Dillon's going to the West Indies, and of his absence for four years, so as to have had no opportunity of preferring his claim, yet even if this had been the case, with the number of trading vessels monthly going out to the West Indies, it was scarcely probable that a man having a claim to £.11,000 would rest four years without pressing it. But Mr. Dillon did not, in fact, go out to the West Indies for two years after the seizure; he remained in the public service up to 1824; and would it be believed that during those two years he had never preferred any claim? Would any one say that Mr. Dillon, knowing the condemnation, should have remained so long without making any claim? When, however, Mr. Dillon was driven to give a reason for his long delay, he gave one which would satisfy hon. Gentlemen that there was not the shadow of a foundation for the claim. He would read to the House the reason for the delay from a written paper prepared by Mr. Dillon himself. They had been told by the hon. Baronet, that Mr. Dillon was not aware of the amount of his claim, and that he had been led astray because there had been no advertisement of the condemnation of the vessel. [Sir F. Burdett had never made that statement.]
The Chancellor of the Exchequerhad understood the hon. Baronet to complain that there had been no insertion in any newspaper of the condemnation which the Government was bound in law to insert, and that, therefore, Mr. Dillon was ignorant of the condemnation.
Sir Francis Burdettdid not state anything about Mr. Dillon's not knowing the value of the prize, but he complained that the condemnation had not been gazetted as it ought to have been, and that Mr. Dillon did not know of the condemnation when he went to the West Indies, at-whatever time that was, whether it was two years or more after the seizure. That was Mr. Dillon's complaint.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer: But Mr. Dillon had himself assigned these as the facts, that shortly after the condemnation he learnt that the seizing-officer, Mr. Marsden, had been awarded upwards of 11,000 l, as his portion of the seizure, and that he (Mr. Dillon) would have made the claim then, but he did not conceive (the word not being evidently inserted by mis-

751
take) the necessity and propriety of withholding for a time the proportion due to his crew, of whom he had received so indifferent a character, the better to ensure discipline and good conduct. So that, when he was called upon to explain the delay, he justified it because he had a bad crew, and that he withheld his own claim, because if he made the claim, it must be distributed among his bad crew as well as himself. The objection which had been raised against the claim was, that it had not been made at the time; and it had been further stated that he had behaved ill. After his claim had been repeatedly refused, he stated the hardship, independently of the question as to the money of the slur upon his character, and he requested an examination, because, till the slur was removed, he could get no employment in the merchant service. After many applications it was agreed, that this portion of the question should be referred to Sir Edward Codrington. But the question of the claim to prize-money was never referred to his gallant Friend. The hon. Baronet, therefore, was the dupe of an exparte statement, into which, if he had ever taken the trouble to look into the Parliamentary Debates, he would have been prevented from falling. After Sir E. Codrington's report as to Mr. Dillon's conduct, Lord Althorp consented that the claim to the prize-money should be reconsidered by the Treasury, and ultimately they offered, and Mr. Dillon took gratefully, the sum of 50 l. from the royal bounty, and he gave a receipt, not on account or for expenses, but for a gift of 50 l., for which he was extremely grateful at the time he received it. The receipt he held in his hand, [Sir Francis Burdett crossed over the House, and took the receipt.] There was Mr. Dillon's own receipt—let the hon. Baronet and his counsel look at it, and see whether they could reconcile one statement with the other. The question had been decided by the Duke of Wellington's Government, which had expressed an adverse decision. Mr. Dillon repeated his application to that Government, and was at last informed that no further answer would be given, and that the claim could not be further entertained. Mr. Dillon next applied to the Government of Lord Grey, for it was the fate of every new Government, and he gave full notice of the facts to hon. Gentlemen opposite—to be called upon to revise all the
752
acts of the preceding Government—and it would be found that those who were most forward and most eager in pressing their claims were generally those who had the worst possible case. Lord Grey's Government also considered this case, and the Board of Treasury, after repeatedly investigating the claim, came to the same decision as that of the Duke of Wellington. Then came the change of ministry in 1835, and then there came also the appeal from Lord Grey's decision; after the reference to Sir Edward Codrington, and after Mr. Dillon had been freed from the imputation of cowardice, the original minutes of the decision by Sir R. Peel's Government were in the hand-writing of the hon. Baronet the Member for Buckingham, and it was to inform the party that Sir R. Peel had referred his letter of "such a date" to the Board of Treasury, which "had again taken the case into their most attentive consideration, and that there was nothing in his statement to influence my Lords to depart from the decision which had been frequently come to by different boards of treasury." Mr. Dillon next stated to them that he had incurred expenses amounting to 4,450 l., and he claimed remuneration from Sir Robert Peel to that extent. On the 5th of March, the following answer was made:—Inform Mr. Dillon that my Lords consider his case finally decided, and request he will abstain from making any further applications to the Board." That was the answer of a Conservative Government; and yet the hon. Gentleman opposite came down to the House to complain of the harshness inflicted by a Whig administration. This, however, was not all; Mr. Dillon again came to Sir R. Peel's Government, and he then applied for the command of a packet, as he had frequently done before; and on the 31st of March, 1835, the Government gave this answer—"Inform Mr. Dillon that his case has been frequently considered, and the decision of the Board has been frequently communicated to him. My Lords do not admit that Mr. Dillon has any claims on the Government, and must decline to interfere in any way with the appointments given to the Board of Admiralty. Inform Mr. Dillon that all future application must be fruitless, and that the Government must decline to make any answer in future." In 1836, Mr. Sharman Crawford presented a petition to this House from Mr. Dillon, praying for

753
an inquiry into his case; and it was then his duty to state facts to the same effect as those which he had now detailed. Mr. Crawford expressed himself entirely satisfied with the explanation which was given, and withdrew his motion, and from that time the Government were rid of Mr. Dillon. Having thus obtained the assistance of Mr. Crawford, and satisfied himself with the uselessness of any application to the Government by means of Members sitting on the ministerial side of the House, he went over to the Conservative ranks, and he booked Mr. Hardy, the late Member for Bradford, as his next victim, the predecessor of the hon. Baronet. That hon. Gentleman made a motion similar to that of the hon. Baronet, but the explanation having been once more afforded to the House, a division took place, when sixteen Gentlemen only supported the proposition, while forty-two were found to vote against it. He prayed the House, therefore, to pursue the same course now, and reject this motion. He thought he had done no more than his duty in giving the explanation which he had afforded, as the Government to which he had the honour to belong were held up to obloquy, as having omitted and refused to pay attention to claims which were professed to be just. If any fault, however, existed on the part of the Government, it was one of a nature exactly opposite to that alleged against them. It was not that they improperly refused to pay attention to such claims as the present; for they were rather disposed to give encouragement to the full extent of their power to those men who deserved well of their country. They could have no object in acting otherwise; and it was, besides, a most pleasant duty to reward merit. In the present case, successive Governments had fully investigated and decided upon the claim of Mr. Dillon, and the opinions so expressed had been confirmed by that of the House of Commons; snd he therefore sincerely hoped that the House would not sanction this renewal of the discussion.
Mr. Littonconsidered that a fair case for inquiry had been made out, and he thought that the proposition was the more abundantly confirmed, as the right hon. Gentleman who had last spoken, although he had gone into considerable detail, had not stated that any real inquiry had yet been made. The case, it was true, might have been investigated by a Treasury
754
clerk, or a Treasury commissioner, but he thought that the House would agree with him that no tribunal had been engaged in the investigation, with power or information sufficient to come to a proper conclusion. The right hon. Gentleman admitted the law of the case, and he contended that after the charge of cowardice had been negatived by Admiral Codrington, the claim of Mr. Dillon could not be disallowed. The claim was in effect admitted by Lord Althorp after that in 1833, who, upon being applied to upon the subject, said that he was surprised that Mr. Dillon's claim had not long since been disposed of. He rested strongly upon this letter, for no new fact had been since discovered which at all took away from the justice of the demand made upon the Government.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerexplained. He said, that he believed that there was another letter from Lord Althorp upon this subject, which had not been communicated to hon. Gentlemen opposite. On the return of that noble Lord to town, he directed Mr. Drummond to write a letter, in which, after stating the facts, he said that after a full investigation of the case, the noble Lord was of opinion that the money having been distributed, and no claim made until so long a period had been allowed to elapse after the transaction, the Treasury Board could not come to any other determination than that which had been already communicated.
Sir Francis Burdett: as he perceived the sense of the House to be against him, should not give them the trouble to divide.
Motion negatived.

LIGHTING THE HOUSE OF COMMONS.
Sir F. Trenchrose to propose the resolution of which he had given notice, namely, that it is the opinion of this House that the present mode of lighting the House with wax candles and green shades is satisfactory; and that, therefore, further experiments and expense are unnecessary. Gentlemen were, probably, not aware of the expense attending the experiments that were being carried on respecting the lighting of the House. He believed that the hon. Member for Kilkenny was the main director of the present experiment. Hon. Gentlemen would perceive that there were eight large lenses inserted in the roof of the House, and undoubtedly the

755
light that was intended to be given was of a very beautiful nature, but it was almost as brilliant as the light of the sun, and was not fit for an assembly of English gentlemen; indeed he did not think that it would be tolerated by an assembly of eagles. It might be an admirable light for a light-house, but it was not fit for the House of Commons. He cared not one farthing for the expense of the experiment, but he could not help complaining of the manner in which he had been stinted in his light, and that he had not equal facilities afforded to him that were given to the Member for Kilkenny. In the proposed plan there were eight lenses, in each lens there were eight lamps, and each lamp had eight burners, each of them had a separate dépôt of oil, and a supply of oxygen. Although oxygen was not in itself calculated to do any harm, yet, in producing it, they must have retorts, and these might be productive of great danger to the House. They were told that there was no danger attendant on these experiments; but so the Trinity-house was told with respect to Drummond's light, which, however, on one occasion, led to an explosion, which carried off the roof of a lighthouse. It would also be extremely disagreeable in case of the overturning of any of these lamps, to have the oil pouring down on the heads of Members. These lights also would require constant superintendence, and if they had not a philosopher to look after every light, they would at least require more than one peripatetic philosopher to superintend them. If the present light was deficient or bad, there would be a reasonable ground of complaint; but if there was any defect, it arose from not adhering to his instructions. They had taken away sixty of his lights, and then they had given him some of inferior quality. Gentlemen would hardly believe that, instead of giving the same candles on Friday as they gave him on Thursday; they were materially diminished, and of inferior calibre. He had taken great pains with the subject, and for the future he washed his hands of the matter; but he trusted that the hon. Member for Kilkenny would use his influence so that he had a proper supply of candles. He should not trouble the House further, but conclude with withdrawing his motion.
Motion of which notice had been given, withdrawn.