Commons Sitting of 10 June 1841

MINUTES.
Bills. Read a first time:—Bribery at Elections; Militia Pay:Appropriation.—Read a second time: —County Bridges (No. 2) Highway Rates.—Read a third time:—New South Wales; Western Australia; Houses of Industry (Ireland); Dog Carts.
Petitions presented. By Mr. Villiers, Mr. Brotherton, Viscount Morpeth, Sir J. C. Hobhouse, Mr. Warburton, and others, from Bilston, Wolverhampton, Stanbridge, Surrey, and a great many other places, for a Repeal of the Corn-laws.—By Mr. G. Parker, Mr. J. Round, Sergeant Jackson, and other hon. Members, from Essex, Waterford, Tipperary, and other places, against any Alteration of the Corn-laws.—By Sir J. Graham, from Milford, for Inquiry into the fitness of that place for a Steam Packet Station.—By Sir G. Sinclair, from various places in Scotland, against the Grant to Maynooth, against Mails on Railways on Sundays, and against Commercial Changes. — By Mr. Evans, from Derbyshire, praying for a Revision of the Import Duties.

REGISTRATION OF ELECTORS — HERTFORD.
Mr. T. Duncombemoved the Order of the Day for calling in the clerk of the peace for the county of Hertford to the bar.
Mr. Story,the clerk of the peace for the county of Hertford, then appeared at the bar, with a large book in his hand.
The Speakersaid, you are ordered to attend this day with a copy of the register of the electors of the county of Hertford. Is that a copy in your hand?
Mr. Story: It is.
The Speaker: Please to deliver it in. You may withdraw.
Mr. Story delivered in the copy and withdrew.
Mr. T. Duncombesaid, he should like to have that copy of the register printed. He did not know that the House would consent to it, but he had a right to ask the question. He would take the opportunity of observing, he did not think they had dealt with the clerk of the peace too harshly on this occasion. He thought it right to state, that after the order of the House, he had referred to several of the principal law-stationers in London, to know in what time they could furnish a copy of the Finsbury list of electors, containing 13,000 names, and was informed by Messrs. Fry law-stationers of Gray's Inn, that it could be copied in two or three hours, in which time they would engage to get it done. Therefore, he thought, they had not been too hard upon the clerk of the peace, in ordering him to produce a copy this day. He should be content whether this question was referred to the printing committee, or that the House should decide whether the copy should be printed or not. The House would remember, that the copy was ordered to be laid on the Table to redress the grievances of the electors of Hertford, but there were no means of redressing those grievances, except the register was printed. It was the duty of the House to protect the elective franchise, and he thought the exercise of that franchise had been impeded by the delay of the clerk of the peace to furnish a copy of the register. He could see no use in the copy lying on the Table. Moreover, his motion was not unprecedented. In 1834, the hon. Member for Dublin had moved that the register of Carrickfergus be printed, and it was printed by order of the House. He, therefore, moved, that this copy of the register be printed.
Sir R. Inglisthought, the question which was put to the clerk of the peace referred to the time in which he himself, with the assistance of his clerks, could make a copy of the register. Any professional person must be aware, that by cutting the register to pieces, it could be accomplished in three hours. With respect to the motion before the House, he believed, that if the register were printed, not more than ten copies would be sold, and if the hon. Gentleman pressed his motion to a division, he (Sir R. Inglis) would certainly vote against it.
Mr. Humesaid, he thought the difficulties which had been thrown in the way of obtaining the register were highly culpable. He never saw a practised lawyer give evidence in so discreditable a manner. Now that the register was obtained, means must be adopted for placing it in the hands of the electors. It appeared to him to be absolutely necessary, that the register should be printed. The hon. Member had proposed, that it should be printed at the expense of the House, and doubtless there were one or two examples of that course. As chairman of the committee with respect to the printing of local papers, he thought a document of this nature should be allowed to be printed at the expense of the parties. He held in his hand the list of the electors of Lincoln, which had been laid on the Table of the House upon motion, which had been printed at the expense of the parties; and he had also a statement of the expense of that printing, from which it appeared, that the expense of printing a sufficient number of the returns for the electors of Hertford would be 146 l. He thought if this document was to be printed, it ought to be done at the expense of the parties who asked for it. He hoped, therefore, that his hon. Friend would not press his motion to a division, because if he did, he could not support him. At the same time, he must say, that he thought there ought to be some remedy for the abuse.
Mr. T. Duncombesaid, after what had been stated by hon. Members he would not press the motion.
Motion negatived.
Mr. Humepresumed, that the parties might print the document at their own expense.
Viscount Howicksaid, that he thought it would be unjust to the electors, that they should be called on to bear the expense of having a document of this kind printed, which ought to be done at the expense of the county. An act ought, in his opinion, to be passed without further delay, by which it should be obligatory on the clerk of the peace of every connty to provide a register, at an expense of 2s. or 3s. for every person who might demand one; and that for every delay which the clerk of the peace might be guilty of in furnishing the required copy, a penalty of 5l. or 10 l. should be imposed. That, he thought, would provide a remedy in such cases as the present.
Conversation dropped.

DANISH CLAIMS.
The Order of the Day for bringing up the report on the Danish claims was read; the report brought up, and resolution read a first time. On the question that it be read a second time.
The Chancellor of the Exchequerrose and said, that after the very able and eloquent speech of his learned Friend last night, he had certainly expected to have heard some arguments from the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite in favour of this motion. As, however, he had abstained from entering into the question, he should not go into all the different grounds which had been so well disposed of, but he would tell the House that it became their duty to think very seriously before they took the step of addressing her Majesty. After the question had been so fully discussed, the House would allow him to suggest, that in point of form, the address to which they had agreed was bad —in fact, that the House was about to ask her Majesty to do that which she cannot do. The address requests her Majesty to advance a quarter of a million, and they engaged the honour of the House to make it good at a future period. Now he would ask any Gentleman in the House, how her Majesty could legally comply with that request. There was no legal power in the Crown to do so, and the only answer that could be made to such an address was, that the Crown had no power to comply with such a request. If the House would listen to him for a few moments, he would satisfy them that the Crown had no power to advance any such sum of money out of any funds whatever. No doubt precedents could be shown for such a course—no doubt that a time when the Crown had hereditary revenues and large sums at its disposal, it was in the power of the Crown to make advances on the faith of the advance being repaid by that House. But they had curtailed those revenues, and most properly he thought, with the concurrence of the Crown; they gradually reduced those funds at the disposal of the Crown until there remained nothing but the Civil-list which was necessary for its own expenditure, and a small sum of the civil contingencies which had been granted for only six months. Now, that being all that was at the disposal of the Crown, he would ask the hon. and learned Member, or even the hon. Member for Kilkenny, how it could be expected that the Crown could make such an advance? He was bound to tell the House, that if a treasury
1418
warrant, signed by her Majesty, and countersigned by himself, were issued, and he were to take it to the Exchequer, the answer would be, that there was no legal means by which-it could be paid, that her Majesty had no power to issue such a warrant, that they could not pay any sum of money unless they were directed to do so by a bill passed by that House, and concurred in by the rest of the Legislature. Now, without going further into details, he would call upon the House to take care that they did not ask her Majesty to take a step which was against the law. The House had always been most properly jealous on the matter—the House had always looked carefully, so as not to allow either the Executive or the Crown to put its hands in the public purse without regulations and restrictions; and he would defy the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite to tell him out of what funds the Crown could advance the money. It was true, that with regard to sums of small amount, the Crown might advance them out of its hereditary revenues, or out of the civil contingencies. There was the case of Mr. Palmer. The hon. and learned Gentleman did not appear to understand the peculiar distinction there was in the case. Mr. Palmer had a claim against the Post Office, and the House had addressed the Crown praying it to pay the sum claimed to Mr. Palmer. But what were the circumstances of the case? A contract had been entered into, as had been alleged, between the Government and Mr. Palmer, relating to the collection of the Post-Office revenue. But in that case there was a specific provision in an Act of Parliament authorising the Crown to pay the expenses attendant on the collection of the Post-Office revenue out of the revenue itself; yet, although there was a specific Act of Parliament authorising the payment, at the time the application was thought so irregular, that the answer of the Crown was, that when the means were provided, the money should be paid. Such was the answer given to the address of the House, although legally the Crown had the power to pay the money. That was the course which had been pursued in that case, in which there were means of payment; but here there were not any means whatever provided by which the request could be complied with, and he trusted, that the House in its anxiety to remedy a supposed injustice to certain parties, would not place the Crown and itself in the position of

1419
asking her Majesty to perform an act which by law she had no power to do. He thought it more fair to bring forward this objection, which had struck him since yesterday, at once, and he should be glad to hear what answer the hon. Member for Kilkenny, or the hon. and learned Gentleman could make to it.
Mr. Humesaid, it was true that her Majesty had no money but what this House afforded to her. The object of this motion was to enforce what the House had more than once acknowledged to be an act of justice, and he asked the right hon. Gentleman why they voted against the Government, and carried their vote for granting the first class of Danish claims? It was true that the House, against the wishes and efforts of the Government, voted, that the first class of the claims should be paid. The same course was pursued with regard to the second class of claimants, and the only difference between those two Governments and the present was, that those two Governments acted in obedience to the orders of the House of Commons, and put those claims in the estimates, and why did not the right hon. Gentleman do the same? There were various ways in which that could be done. Take the case which happened a few months ago. He objected to an address to her Majesty, praying that she would take means to settle 2,000 l a-year on Lord Keane. He divided against the motion, but he was in a minority—the House of Commons decided against him. Was this objection taken then? If the objection is a proper one, the case of Lord Keane was open to precisely the same objection. What he understood by that vote was, that it simply asked her Majesty, if she approved of the object of the vote, that she would give directions to her Ministers to bring in a bill for the purpose of carrying that vote into effect. That was done in the case of Lord Keane, and why was not the same course pursued in the present instance? Was there any difficulty whatever in adopting the same course, or did the right hon. Gentleman say, that whatever the House of Commons might determine, Ministers would not adopt it? The late Chancellor of the Exchequer said the same, but still he adopted it. Money had been paid on the same ground, and it therefore appeared to him, that the objection was utterly unworthy of her Majesty's Government, when, on two previous occasions, they had paid similar claims. The first class of claimants was
1420
immediately paid, and the second class was paid also, although the Chancellor of the Exchequer said, that he would never consent to it. The question was, whether her Majesty's Ministers, after the expression of opinion by the House, five times repeated, were determined to prevent its being carried into effect. If so, the only course that remained was, for the hon. Gentleman to ask leave to bring in a bill to carry out the intentions of the House, and pay the money. He submitted to her Majesty's Government, that having acted in two cases in obedience to the address of the House, they ought to do so on the present occasion, and not to counsel her Majesty to refuse her consent when the House had come to the resolution by a majority of 540 against perhaps 5. He submitted to them that was not a becoming course to adopt towards a majority of the House of Commons. The Government had admitted, that a majority of one was sufficient to test the wish of the House; why, then, should they advise her Majesty not to accede to that which, in the course of justice, this House had thought proper to recommend. He was not aware of any other mode, if Ministers refused, than bringing in an Act of Parliament, and compelling them to adopt the course the House desired to be pursued by that Act. He would state an instance of a parallel case. A claim was made on the East-India Company—the Company declared that the claim was good, but it was not satisfied. Leave was then asked to bring in a bill. That bill was brought in, and a sum of 22,000 l. was paid, not of public monies, but of the money of the East-India Company, to the individual, in satisfaction for his claim for justice. Various other instances had come to his knowledge, and might be stated. He, therefore, submitted to the Government, that after repeated indications of the opinions of large majorities of this House, they should not be stopped by technicalities from carrying those opinions into effect.
Mr. Cresswelllsaid, the right hon. Gentleman, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, complains of me for not answering the right hon. the Solicitor-general, when this resolution was first proposed. I should certainly have done so, particularly after the good-humoured piece of mischief which the right hon. Gentleman directed against me, but I thought it would be more consonant with the form of the House, as the motion was put from the Chair, that some one should oppose it before I said anything

1421
in its favour. Now, with respect to the objections stated to-day by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, that I call upon the House to adopt an address to the Crown, asking her Majesty to do that which by law she has no power to do. I frankly state, that I am driven to this course by the persevering opposition of himself and his predecessor to the wish of the House. Therefore, I thought I was justified—nay, Sir, I think I was bound in justice to those on whose behalf I have undertaken this question, thinking them justly entitled to the compensation which they ask. I considered, that I was bound to bring it before this House in every shape which the form of the House made legitimate for the purpose of following out that successful motion which I made four years ago, in behalf of these unfortunate sufferers. And I cannot help thinking, that the right hon. Gentleman has not been quite correct in his solution of the case of Mr. Palmer. He was well aware, I should rely upon Mr. Palmer's case as a precedent. Undoubtedly, before I troubled, the House, I was bound to look for some precedent, and I found one in the case of Mr. Palmer; in that case, I found an address to the Prince Regent, praying his Royal Highness to direct certain sums to be paid which the House pledged itself to make good. The right hon. Gentleman says, that that is no precedent, because the Prince Regent had the power by act of Parliament—that funds were already at his disposal by act of Parliament, and he was authorized to pay the money out of the Post-office revenue. If so, how came his Royal Highness's advisers to bring back this answer—that they would order the money to be paid when funds existed? I think Mr. Palmer's case does present a precedent for this, but whether it does or not, I shall certainly persevere in my motion, and divide the House, in order that I may have a declaration on the part of this House, whether they do or do not coincide in the propriety of making compensation. And now I will endeavour to meet the arguments of my hon. and learned Friend, the Solicitor-general, and if I had heard them for the first time last night—if that had been the first occasion of this matter being brought before the House, when my hon. and learned Friend got up and told me, that he thought I was under some misapprehension, that I had misconceived the facts in reference to this subject, and had drawn false conclusions from the premises that I had advanced, I
1422
should have been very apt to suppose, that I was in some error, if the matter had not been fully discussed on three several occasions. In listening to my hon. Friend afterwards, I found, that he had been extremely diligent in reading what had passed on former occasions, and put all the scattered fragments of argument into a connected form last night; yet, in truth, he had recounted nothing new; not one single argument, nothing, in fact, was added, except one or two dates, and, as I think, the hon. Member for Bridport laid some stress upon those dates, I beg his attention to one or two, which were not mentioned by the Solicitor-general. On the 27th July, as stated by my hon. and learned Friend, the expedition sailed. At that time, an embargo had been laid upon all Danish vessels. Danish vessels were afterwards seized and brought in. The hon. and learned Gentleman has stated, that on the 16th of August, a proclamation was issued by the Danish government, stating, that they considered hostilities had then commenced. Now, I beg to draw the attention of the House to a proclamation which was issued by the commander of the British forces before Copenhagen; and let us see what was stated by the commander of our own forces as to there being war or not, because the whole case had been rested by my hon. and learned Friend, upon the fact of these ships and vessels being seized. What was the proclamation issued by the commander of the British forces on August 16, the very date given by the hon. and learned Gentleman, the Solicitor-general? I think they then said, that they came to the Danish shores not as enemies—" We come to your shores, inhabitants of Zealand, not as enemies, but in self-defence, to prevent those who have so long destroyed the peace of Europe—to prevent you from turning the course of your navy against us." The hon. and learned Gentleman had said, that if a weak man, having a deadly weapon in his hand, met with a strongman, and upon his attacking him, and his using that weapon, it was wrested from him, was it to be said, that he was to be entitled to compensation? I should say, yes. What right, I would ask, have we to take Danish vessels without giving compensation to them? I have shown, that the commanders of the British vessels had disclaimed being at war in August, 1807; what was said? Why, that because of the acts against the Danish property the British nation were bound to compensate them. So justly was that felt

1423
by the British Government, that in September it was thought necessary to issue a State Paper, in order to justify the proceedings of the Government. So the matter rested; but before that, what took place on the 7th of September? The hon. and learned Gentleman said, these parties were very incautious after these proceedings in sailing up the Baltic; but on the 7th of September, when the stipulation of Copenhagen was sanctioned, it was stipulated, that all hostile acts should cease, and that nothing like war took place till November. The hon. and learned Gentleman had said this doctrine was new in the House—that heretofore it had been conceded, that there was war at that time. Now, for my own part, I may say, that I have never conceded any such thing, for on the very first occasion on which I brought this question before the House, I said, that there was no war. In war, we might give other nations the opportunity of making reprisals, but those things became debts of the State, and ought to be paid by it. But when it was a case of State necessity it became much more important. My hon. and learned Friend has quoted the opinion of Sir James Mackintosh, an opinion always entitled to great respect, which was given in this House, that the parties who had goods or debts that were confiscated were entitled to compensation on this principle, that if the subjects of this country were injured in a foreign state, by seizure of their property, if the Government did not obtain redress, the Government were bound to male compensation. Now, Sir, that may be very true, but I do not find, that principle was ever enunciated in this House till it was used by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, when that office was filled by Lord Monteagle. It was a very convenient argument, indeed, for a Chancellor of the Exchequer, that the principle was first made use of by Lord Monteagle, as Chancellor of the Exchequer, in 1834. It is a principle which was never held by Lord Althorp; nor was it ever mentioned till introduced in debate to answer the claims with respect to the seizure of goods and ships, which was brought before this House. When an hon. Gentleman, the guardian of the public purse, gets up and says, that this act was done during the war, I say, grant that we were at war, still we are entitled to have our claims attended to, and if there was no war we are also entitled to be protected against such a seizure. I say,
1424
the principle was never acknowledged by the Government, until it suited the purposes of Government, in order to defeat the claims advanced. But we have several instances which were treated of by the hon. and learned Member for the Tower Hamlets, when an application was made with respect to the state of affairs in the Baltic after the attack on Copenhagen. The hon. and learned Gentleman (the Solicitor-general) said, that those applications were made to the Admiral, who is dead, and, therefore, that no information could be obtained on the matter. But one of those applications referred to by the right hon. and learned Gentleman, the Member for the Tower Hamlets, was made to the Admiralty, and not to the Admiral. I believe, that the insurances were made, in order, that the dock-yards might be supplied with the produce of the countries bordering on the Baltic. The Government at the time encouraged seamen to go up the Baltic, in order to bring home goods. It was said, there was extreme imprudence in, going up the Baltic, at the period alluded to. What imprudence could there be in so doing? Those who sailed there had information to the effect, that all hostilities had ceased—that they might go in perfect safety. The hon. and learned Gentleman, the Solicitor-general, asked me for my proofs. I have had recourse to two or three authorities on the subject, which I mentioned on a former occasion. I beg the hon. and learned Gentleman's attention to the third book of Grotius, De Jure Belli, and the second book of Vattel, chapter 18. I there find the following passage —
" Those who have given occasion for reprisals, are bound to grant compensation to those who have suffered by them."
(The hon. and learned Gentleman then quoted a passage from Grotius to the effect that "it was the duty of a State to compensate those on whom reprisals had fallen.") I think, that those passages show, that as the seizure of the Danish property was in itself opposed to the laws of nations, the Danes being a friendly power, and they not having denied us any right, or done us any wrong, for which they had refused compensation, when we seized on their goods, I think, that under these circumstances, we are to take upon ourselves the responsibility of the consequences of the war. If, under these circumstances, compensation had been de-

1425
manded from the Danes, they would say, that they had been attacked merely because they would not surrender their armaments, their capital was bombarded, and their citizens slaughtered, and they were not liable for the consequences of such a state of things. There is but one other topic to which I shall advert. The hon. and learned Gentleman, and the right hon. the Chancellor of the Exchequer, had said, that they were the trustees of the public purse. Yes, they were; but what had they done with the trust fund? When Lord-Brougham was Lord Chancellor an expression fell from him which, in my opinion, did him great honour. A large sum of money had been in dispute between parties of the name of Troutbeck. The Attorney-general stated upon the occasion, that the money was gone, and that there was no use in entering into a discussion on the subject. "But," said Lord Brougham, "if the money is gone, it is not gone according to law. It ought to be here to abide the result of the suit; and I will not allow you to put that in argument," I, too, say, that when there was a trust fund, it should be used for the purpose of that trust. On the last occasion, when I had the honour of submitting the subject for the consideration of the House, I read to the House a letter placed in my hands, by my friend Mr. Wilberforce. On a former occasion, when a discussion had come on in the House respecting the detention of the Danish vessels, and the claims of our subjects, Mr. Wilberforce had voted with the Government, and in favour of the detention of the vessels. A remonstrance, however, had been addressed to him upon the subject, and he had then stated, that he had acted with great reluctance, but he could not resist the argument that those vessels would constitute a trust fund for the purpose of making compensation to those among our own subjects whose property might have been seized by the Danes. I say, therefore, that was a trust fund, and though it had become a trust fund some thirty years ago, and was not applied to the purpose to which it ought to be applied, that forms no argument against the claimants, and they have not by their neglect, or by a want of due notice, lost their title. I trust, then, the House will sanction the motion to which I have called its attention. Whether the House adopts or rejects this motion, I have done my duty. The House will make its decision upon its own responsibility, and it rests with it to
1426
rescind or abide by the decision it has on so many occasions already come to.
Mr. Warburtondid not regret, that the aid of the hon. and learned Solicitor-general had been called in, but it would not induce him to vary the vote he had given on a former occasion. He thought it had been established to the satisfaction of the House, that those were reprisals, and not captures, and that the parties were entitled to compensation. He need not refer to the case of the Spanish vessels which had been seized at the breaking up of the war in Spain, and in which compensation was granted to the owners. On the 22nd of July, an embargo was laid on all the Danish vessels' in the English ports, and an armament was sent out to seize all vessels on the high seas belonging to that government. The armament ascended to the mouth of the Baltic, which everybody knew was a close sea, and he thought it only reasonable, fair, and just, that where the British Government derived so large a sum of money from the capture of the fleet and stores, and the condemnation of vessels seized in British ports, it was only reasonable and just that compensation should be afforded out of that large sum. It was nothing for him to hear that he funds had been misapplied; it was no answer to say, that thirty years had elapsed since the occurrence; that was only a stronger reason why the parties should immediately receive the small pittance of compensation to be awarded to them. He relied upon the want of notice to the British, who were sending their vessels to the Baltic, and upon the withdrawal of the British fleet, thereby rendering capture certain. That was enough to justify him in departing from the usual rules, in voting for compensation.
The Solicitor-Generaldid not wish for a moment to take credit to himself for anything he was not entitled to, therefore he must disclaim the credit given him by his learned Friend, that his statements of last night were merely the arguments used in former debates, and put in a clearer form; he supposed the superior intelligence of his learned Friend had enabled him to find it out. Sir James Mackintosh had distinctly laid it down, that book debts and goods seized ought to be compensated because they were seized against the usages of war and the law of nations; in such a case, he laid it down that it was the duty of the Government to enforce compensation by arms, or to make com-

1427
pensation out of their own funds. The application of the principle, however, he limited to seizures made against the law of nations, and against the usages of war. That was an authority upon the present occasion. When he addressed the House yesterday, he had refrained from reading the documents, contenting himself with stating them, and waiting until he heard whether they were contradicted. He would then read them. The first was a clear declaration of war upon the part of Denmark against England; and he said distinctly, that that declaration was made on the 16th of August. He would now state the facts; he would recapitulate them to the House. His hon. and learned Friend had stated, that there had been an embargo previous to the 27th of July. Now, he could discover no such thing, and he should be glad if his hon. and learned Friend, would refer him to the authority on which he made such statement. [Mr. Cresswell: It was so stated on bringing forward the motion in 1831.] He would refer his hon. and learned Friend to the orders of the Admiralty for laying on the embargo, which were dated the 25th of August. He had inquired at the Admiralty, and there was no document there to show, that any embargo had been laid on before the 25th of August; nor could he find at the Admiralty any trace of any application having been made there, as stated by one of the persons interested in supporting these claims, by any persons for information, or that any information had been given by any persons on the subject. On the 25th of August, the orders of the Admiralty authorising the detention of vessels were issued, and affairs continued in that state until the 2nd September, when those orders were confirmed and extended by an Order in Council. On the 3rd of August, the British fleet arrived off the coast of Denmark, and cut oft' all communication between the island of Zealand and the continent of Europe. Now, what effect on the mind of any man of ordinary intelligence must the appearance of a British fleet off the coast of Denmark have produced? If it were unexpected, the more likely was it to excite alarm; find he contended, that the appearance of that fleet, accompanied at it was by ft great body of troops, was abundant intimation to the merchants, that they could not remain safely in the proximity of such a
1428
fleet, and that if they did so remain, they must do so at their own expense and risk, and not at the expense and risk of the nation. From the 5th of August until the 13th, negotiations were going on between Mr. Jackson, the representative of the British Government at Copenhagen, and the Danish Government, relative to the surrender of the Danish fleet to the care of Great Britain. On the 16th of August, the Danish government issued the following proclamation, which would be found in the 14th volume of the "Annual Register," page 173. (The hon. and learned Gentleman here read the declaration of Christian 6th, in which, after reciting the demands made by the British resident, Mr. Jackson, he stated, that the resident, on the refusal of the Danish Government, to comply with those demands, had demanded passports for himself and his suite, and that, consequently, the war between England and Denmark might be considered as actually broken out, and he called upon all his faithful subjects to arm to repel the English aggression. He further ordered, that all English ships and property wherever found should be seized, and that all English should, until they could be sent out of the country, be placed under arrest; and the declaration finished by stating, that, as a matter of course, all English ships and boats found upon the coast, should be considered as hostile and that all correspondence with English subjects should cease until further orders.) When the King of Denmark issued a proclamation on the 16th of August, that war was actually broken out, could any man say, that he was justified in remaining in the Baltic to prosecute commercial speculations, on the belief, that pacific relations would not be interrupted? No relations of peace and amity subsisted between the nations after that proclamation; and on that day Admiral Gambier and Lord Cathcart issued an address, in which they stated, that they were ordered there by command of his Majesty, to obtain by pacific negotiation, if possible, the surrender of the Danish fleet. That surrender was refused; and, on the 24th of August, the Danish government issued a further proclamation, in very hostile terms. On the 2nd September, the bombardment of Copenhagen commenced. From that time, there was no pretence for the statement that anything like a cessation of hostilities had

1429
taken place. On the 9th September, the decree was issued, which gave rise to the claims for compensation, namely, that respecting the confiscation. On the 23rd of September a British manifesto was issued, showing the two nations distinctly to be at war. Now, when were these vessels seized? On the 6th of August, and on the 5th of September: but the great majority late in October, through November, and down to the 23rd of December. On the 4th of November, Great Britain, never having entertained hostile feelings towards Denmark, but having acted on the principle of great State necessity—a necessity founded on the most absolute justice—if self-protection be consistent with justice—the Government of the day was restrained from presenting a perfect defence, because we know, that at certain times private information which the Government may procure, may not be disclosed with safety to the individual who furnished that information, nor consistently with the means of obtaining further information which it might be desirable that they should possess. But, afterwards they discovered, that France and Russia had determined to seize the Danish fleet, and use it hostilely against Great Britain; and when the British navy arrived at Copenhagen, that place was in a state absolutely defenceless, so as to give every facility to the objects of Russia and France. It was complained that the English had taken the fleet when the Danes were not in a situation for defence. But that was their justification, for it became the imperative duty of the Government of the day to take wise, prompt, and decisive measures, that that fleet should not be used for the invasion of Great Britain, and the British Government would have deserved impeachment if, on the information they possessed, they had not wrested from the power of Russia such powerful means as the Danish fleet afforded. The hon. and learned Gentleman denied that they were at war. Hi" acute nod intelligent Friend behind him (Mr. Warburton) had looked too closely into the question to make such an Assertion; he had retired from that position. What constituted war? One nation appeared with a powerful armament on the shores of another nation, demanding of that other to surrender its fleet; that demand was resisted, and the Government so required, published to its subjects that the two na-
1430
tions were at war, and immediately directed the commencement of hostile acts. Did not that constitute war? Were the Danes to say whether they were at war, or his hon. and learned Friend? In their proclamations they stated, that the war was begun. It was not a paper war, a proclamation was issued by the Danish Government, that the two nations were at war. What was the foundation for the statement that the two nations were not at war? There was not the slightest, unless his hon. Friend could erase from the records this declaration of war on the part of Denmark. It was a most material fact for the House to bear in mind, and to adopt a distinct conclusion upon, were the two nations at war, prior to the seizure of these vessels? His hon. Friend seemed to think that he had imputed to him a want of accuracy in reference to the books. He had read the speech of his hon. and learned Friend attentively, and after reading it, he was astonished at the result. Nothing but his happy manner of delivering what he had to say, could have made that speech effectual to convince the House. His hon. and learned Friend seemed to think, that he (the Solicitor-general) was mistaken in supposing, that he had drawn an incorrect inference. His hon. land learned Friend had not made any quotation from Grotius. He would refer the House to the authority of Vattel on the subject of reprisals. Reprisals were those things which were taken by nations which had a complaint against other countries, prior to the breaking out of a war, and with a view to obtain justice, upon a matter of complaint. (The hon. and learned Gentleman then referred to the authority of Vattel with respect to reprisals, in justification of the course the Government had pursued.) Now what was the date of the seizure of the vessels in question, what were the dates as compared with the declaration he had heard that the two nations were at war? A few in the month of August, still fewer in September, and fewer still in October and November. The two nations Were at war after the 4th of November. Apologies were made for the act done, but Stating that it was absolutely necessary for the preservation of the country by reason of the coalition of France and Russia. If his learned Friend called that an apology he was at perfect liberty to do so; but, in his (the Solicitor-general) opinion, it was justice to the nation. These

1431
seizures, therefore, he said, were all of them after war, and there was no ground for calling into the subject any recognised principle, for the case of goods and debts stood upon different grounds. Now, he wished to understand the ground upon which this was put, was it enough to say, that it was the peculiar circumstances of the case; if such was to be the ground it might be said, and said truly, that every case had its peculiar circumstances; no two cases could be identical; if it was to be put on the ground of peculiarity of circumstances it should be put upon some great and intelligible ground, such as could not be mistaken on future occasions. Now, what was the peculiarity here? His friends said, that they were taken by surprise— that no notice had been given of hostility to enable them to escape—was that the peculiarity? How often would it happen —he hoped never to see such days as that, but if the experience of the past was matter of caution for the future, looking at the course of events what answer he would ask could they give to the numerous claims which stood upon the same foundation? He denied that they had not responsible notice, and even if they had not, if it was said that the absence of notice furnished a ground for compensation, then he said, that the present case was peculiar for absence of any such ground; but he asserted that the parties had as much notice as was necessary. It was stated in the course of the debate, that an individual of the name of Harrison, had applied to Admiral Gambier to know if he might safely go to the Baltic. This might be the case, but the supposed conversation took place thirty years after the period referred to. But let them mark what followed. That individual wrote home to England to obtain an insurance. What did that writing home for an insurance show? Did it show that he might remain there without fear of war? Certainly not. The merchants who traded to the Baltic were a very adventurous get of men—they chose to speculate—they Stayed to load their cargoes, but they stayed too long. The British fleet was detained for ft time to put the Danish fleet in ft state to come to England. Why did not the vessels come away with the fleet? It was argued that the British fleet did not leave sufficient protection for the vessels in the Sound. That would be no ground for compensation. A large fleet such as that was must have been some time preparing o sail. Could those in the Baltic be ignorant that
1432
such a fleet was about to depart or had already departed? Decidedly not. If they chose to remain they did so at their own risk, as they did for their own profit. That, then, would form no ground on which to sustain these claims. Something had been said about a conversation which took place at the Admiralty. Would that House say, that on the ground of a conversation said to be held at the Admiralty about which nothing certain existed, they should vote away a large sum of money. That was certainly too futile a ground to be upheld. No application on the subject existed in writing. It was asked, if they had thought it fit to take the fleet? why did they give any compensation at all. Compensation was given in the former cases, because it was intended at the time the fleet was taken to return it in perfect safety. When the Danes refused to surrender their fleet and assumed a hostile attitude, we were obliged to consider them as enemies, and the ships were therefore taken in state of warfare. It was to the Danish captains that compensation was given for their private expenses and freightage. It could not for a moment be contended that the property seized by the British Government from its enemies, should be applied to the payments of the losses of private individuals. He regretted the loss these parties had sustained in the pursuit of their commercial speculations; but there must be some broad and intelligible ground on which such an application should be made. The Spanish case, had been referred to as forming a precedent, but he denied that there was any analogy between these cases. Before the House granted the present application they would do well to consider what was the precedent which they were about to lay down; and he was satisfied that in every principle of justice and honesty, the parties now before the House had no claim what ever upon the public funds.
Mr. A. Chapmancontended that the Government was bound to remunerate these parties, for the losses they had sustained, because, when application was made to them, they stated that there need be no apprehension whatever, and, acting upon that advice, one of his constituents, with his family, had been entirely ruined. He contended that these claims stood upon precisely the same footing as the book debts and the goods seined on shore. He himself had sent out ft ship which had been seized at Copenhagen, but it had been afterward re-taken and delivered up to him by Admi-

1433
ral Gambier. He trusted, that the Government would see the justice and expediency of no longer withholding the settlement of these claims.
The House divided: Ayes 75; Noes 64; Majority 11.

List of the AYES.

Alexander, N.

Humphery, J.

Antrobus, E.

Hutt, W.

Arbuthnott, hon. H.

Inglis, Sir R. H.

Bagge, W.

Irton, S.

Baldwin, C. B.

Kemble, H.

Bannnerman, A.

Lambton, H.

Barnard, E. G.

Langdale, hon. C.

Bateson, Sir R.

Lascelles, hon. W. S.

Bell, M.

Liddell, hon. H. T.

Bethell, R.

Lowther, hn. Colonel

Blackstone, W. S.

Lygon, hon. General

Broadley, H.

Mackenzie, T.

Buller, Sir J, Y.

Maclean, D.

Burr, H.

Muntz, G. F.

Chapman, A.

Neeld, J.

Chute, W. L. W.

Ord, W.

Collier, J.

Pakington, J, S.

Craig, W. G.

Palmer, G.

Darlington, Earl of

Parker, M.

Douglas, Sir C. E.

Perceval, Colonel

Dunbar, G.

Philips, M.

Duncombe, hon. W.

Pryme, G.

Egerton, W. T.

Reid, Sir J. R.

Feilden, W.

Round, C. G.

Ferguson, Colonel

Round, J.

Filmer, Sir E.

Sibthorp, Colonel

Freshfield, J. W.

Smith, J. A.

Gaskell, J. Milnes

Style, Sir C.

Grey, rt. hon. Sir C.

Thesiger, F.

Grimsditch, T.

Vere, Sir C. B.

Hawes, B.

Verner, Colonel

Hawkes, T.

Wakley, T.

Henniker, Lord

Wemyss, Captain

Hepburn, Sir T. B.

Williams, W.

Hinde, J. H.

Wodehouse, E.

Hindley, C.

Worsley, Lord

Hodgson, R.

TELLERS.

Hotham, Lord

Cresswell, C.

Hume, J.

Warburton, W.

List of the NOES.

Armstrong, A.

Graham, rt. hn. Sir J.

Baring, rt. hn. F. T.

Grey, rt. hon. Sir G.

Barry, G. S.

Guest, Sir J.

Bernal, R.

Hastie, A.

Briscoe, J. I.

Hector, C. J.

Brodie, W. B.

Herries, rt. hon. J. C.

Brotherton, J.

Hobhouse, rt. hn. Sir J.

Buck, L. W.

Hobhouse, T. B.

Buller, C.

Hoskins, K.

Busfeild, W.

Howard, P. H.

Campbell, Sir J.

Howard, hn. C. W. G.

Carew, hon. R. S.

Labouchere, rt. hn. H.

Childers, J. W.

Listowel, Earl of

Corry, hon. H.

Lushington, rt. hn. S.

Dalmeny, Lord

Macaulay, rt. hn. T. B.

Ferguson, Sir R. A.

Marshall, W.

Goulburn, rt. hon, H.

Morpeth, Viscount

MUNICIPAL CORPORATIONS.
Sir J. Y. Bullermoved the third reading of the Municipal Corporations Bill.
The House divided on the moion:—. Ayes 64; Noes 9: Majority 45.

List of the AYES.

Baldwin, C. B.

Kemble, H.

Barnard, E. G.

Mackinnon, W. A.

Broadley, H.

O'Brien, W. S.

Brocklehurst, J.

O'Ferrall, R. M.

Brodie, W. B.

Palmerston, Viscount

Brotberton, J.

Parker, J.

Buller, C

Parker, M.

Burr, H.

Perceval, Colonel

Busfield, W.

Pigot, rt. hn. D.

Campbell, Sir J.

Pinney, W.

Chapman, A.

Pryme, G.

Cochrane, Sir T. J.

Rundle, J.

Ferguson, Colonel

Russell, Lord J.

Grey, rt. hn. Sir C.

Rutherfurd, rt. hn. A.

Grey, rt. hn. Sir G.

Sheil, rt. hn. R. L.

Grimsditch, T.

Talbot, C. R. M.

Guest, Sir J.

Trench, Sir F.

Harcourt, G. G.

Troubridge, Sir E. T.

Hawes, B.

Turner, E.

Hector, C. J.

Villiers, hon. C. P.

Herries, rt. hn. J. C.

Wakley, T.

Hinde, J. H.

Warburton, H.

Hindley, C.

Wilde, Sir T.

Hobhouse, T. B.

Wynn, rt. hn. C. W.

Hoskins, K.

Wyse, T.

Howard, P. H.

Humphery, J.

TELLERS.

Hutt, W.

Buck, L. W.

Inglis, Sir R. H.

Buller, Sir J. Y.

List of the NOES.

Baring, rt. hn. F. T.

Thornely, T.

Cresswell, C.

Williams, W.

Morris, D.

Yates, J. A.

Smith, J. A.

TELLERS.

Smith, B.

Douglas, Sir C.

Style, Sir C.

Maclean, D.

Bill read a third time and passed.

BRIBERY AT ELECTIONS.
Lord John Russelltook the opportunity of stating how he meant to proceed with the Bribery at Elections Bill. If he could expect under existing circumstances, to obtain attention to the different clauses in committee, and due deliberation upon the whole subject, he should be very desirous of carrying the measure through its remaining stages. He could hardly hope that such would be the case but he was quite ready to take any course the House might think expedient.
Sir R. Peelremarked, that he had voted for the second reading, and he was most anxious, that the offences of bribery and treating should be defined, that it might be known what bribery and treating were in the eye of the law. It was material also to consider the propriety of requiring a declaration from parties appointed to offices, in order to make it more secure that they were not given away for services rendered at elections, and thereby converted into a species of bribery. Whatever attempt might be made to define bribery, he hoped it would be a successful one, and that the House would not now adopt a course in that respect which it might at some future time regret. It would be inconvenient to pass a law which it was necessary afterwards to amend. So few days would now elapse before the House was dismissed, that he thought the noble Lord would exercise a sound discretion if he did not press the bill,
Mr. Wynnthought some portions of the measure valuable, and was unwilling to abandon them, although it would perhaps be better to consider the whole subject together.
Lord John Russellproposed that the House should resolve itself into committee.
Mr. Wynnrepeated his opinion as to the great value of some of the clauses, particularly those compelling witnesses to give evidence of bribery before election committees. If those clauses were persevered in now, it would, of course, be necessary to give the witnesses indemnity. At present, witnesses before courts of law were protected from the consequences of their evidence, but such was not the case before election committees, where it was even more important. He thought, that these clauses might be separated from the rest of the bill.
Mr. S. O'Brienurged, that no time could be more proper for passing such a bill than the present, when the country was on the eve of a general election.
Lord John Russellthought, that the
1436
House might now go into committee on those clauses which were admitted to be unobjectionable.
Sir R. H, Inglissaid, his right hon. Friend (Sir R. Peel) had left the House under the impression that the bill would not be proceeded with that evening.
Lord John Russellsaid, the right hon. Baronet's objection was to the introduction of a definition of bribery to which the House might not afterwards adhere.
Mr. Wakleysaid, he had understood the noble Lord (J. Russell) to say, that he was prepared to go on with the bill if the House were so disposed, and he did not know of any question which could at present occupy the time of the House so advantageously for the country.
Mr. W. Wynnwas of opinion, that the present laws against bribery were sufficiently severe, but the difficulty was to put them in execution, as it was almost impossible to bring the proof home to anybody so as to secure a conviction. To this inconvenience it would be of course exceedingly desirable to apply a remedy.
House in Committee.
The first five clauses were abandoned, other clauses were agreed to.
Mr. W. S. O'Briensubmitted the following clause;—
" And be it enacted, that every Member returned to serve in Parliament, shall, after taking the oath" prescribed to be taken at the Table of the House of Commons, before he becomes entitled to sit and vote, also make and subscribe the following declaration—
" ' I do hereby solemnly affirm and declare, that I have not directly or indirectly made use of any bribery for the purpose of being elected at the late election as a Member of this House for the county of (or county of a city, town, or borough, as the case may be).'
" And be it enacted, that if any person shall make and subscribe such declaration falsely, every such person, being duly convicted thereof, shall incur and suffer such pains, penalties, and disabilities, as persons convicted of wilful and corrupt perjury are by law liable to, and may be prosecuted for the same at any period within five years after he shall have made such declaration."
Clause brought up.
On the question that it be read a second time,
Mr. Warburtonsaid, his only doubt as to the proposition was, would it be effectual for the purpose and prevent bribery? Would it not have the effect of inducing persons to believe that elections were purer than they really were, and of shrouding

1437
corrupt transactions from the public? It would be said, "Can you believe that bribery is practised when a solemn declaration is made that it was not t" He would refer to the sale of commissions in the army. In the general orders and regulations of the army, some years ago, was the form of a declaration respecting the sale of commissions to be made by an officer selling a commission, which was made and certified "on the word and honour of an officer and a gentleman, that the party had not demanded or accepted, would demand or accept, at any time or in any manner whatever, more than the sum limited and fixed by His Majesty's regulations as the full value of a commission." The purchaser made a similar declaration, and the colonel or commanding officer certified to his belief that the regulations had been strictly complied with, and that there had been no private bargain. That had been the regulation in the army; he did not know whether it was so at present. Every one knew, however, that the regulation had not been conformed to in the slightest degree— that it had been considered absolutely a dead letter. Yet officers of the army claimed to be considered as the very pink of honour, and never suffered any aspersion to be cast upon their honour. The case to which he had been calling the attention of the House was not the only one of the kind; there was the oath administered to the Irish clergy of the established church, under the provisions of the 28th of Henry 8th, cap. 15, which was as little attended to as the declaration made on the sale of commissions in the army. In defiance of any declaration of the nature now proposed, agents employed at elections would go to Members after they had been returned and would say that some necessary expenses had been incurred, the precise details of which they could not then set forth; they would state the gross amount, and add, that if the hon. Member intended ever again to become a candidate for the borough, be had better pay the amount, and in that manner would these things be managed. He thought, therefore, that declarations would produce no practical effect. There was no one capable of being influenced by a declaration who would not feel as much bound by the obligation under which every good citizen lay—to observe the laws of the land.
Colonel Sibthorphad quitted the House some time ago under the impression that the noble Lord did not intend to proceed with the bill. His right hon. Friend the
1438
Member for Tamworth was under the same impression, and was now absent, because he believed that the bill was not to be proceeded with; he therefore felt bound to protest against going on with the measure. He objected to the bill on this amongst other grounds, that its effect would be to restrain the higher and wealthier classes from aiding their humbler neighbours. If the bill passed into a law, a man could not give 5s. to a charitable assembly without exposing himself to the charge of bribery. He had several objections to make to the earlier clauses of the bill. [The Chairman: They are postponed.] In that case he should reserve any further observations which he might have to make until the report was brought up. He wished now, however, to be distinctly informed by the noble Lord whether he intended to go on with the bill.
Lord J. Russellsaid, he was glad that the hon. Member for Lincoln had put that question to him. What he had stated on a former occasion was this, that he would not proceed with the bill if the House, after considering its provisions, desired that it should not reach another stage, and he understood that the right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth had agreed to that; but, as the House was then engaged with another bill, the 8peaker had very properly interposed. He had expected to collect the sense of the House as to whether they had better proceed with the measure or not. It had since occurred to him that the latter part of the present bill would form of itself a good measure, and, being separated from the first part, might be introduced as a substantive bill. He thought that tonight they might go on with the bill, as there would at the next stage be an opportunity afforded to the right hon. Baronet the Member for Tamworth to take whatever course he might think the most expedient.
Sir D. Norreysthought the proposition of his hon. Friend the Member for Limerick a good one, and hoped that he would persist in it.
Mr. E. Turnerthought, that the best form would be an oath taken before the returning officer. The candidate would be pledged before his constituents, and would run a greater risk of detection should he declare falsely.
Colonel Percivalopposed the clause then before the House.
Mr. Hobhouseconcurred in some of the objections which had been taken against the

1439
clause, for he thought there was no form of declaration which could be laid on the Table of that House which might not be evaded. However, he thought, besides, there was something unjust in the clause, for it proposed to enact that any person found guilty of an improper declaration should be subjected to a certain penalty. Now that part of it, he conceived, would be unjust in its operation, if the word wilfully was not introduced. When Gentlemen of that House were disposed to put an end to bribery in reality, they had the remedy in their own hands; and if they had so sincerely, nothing would tend more to raise the character of that House, when it was known, that it was no longer to be contaminated by having its seats purchaseable.
Mr. H. Hardingewished to know before what tribunal it was proposed that Members of that House should be tried. Was it before a parliamentary committee, which he conceived was a most objectionable course, or in a court of law?
Mr. S. O'Briensaid he thought, that under the clause before the House, any person accused could be tried in the ordinary way.
Mr. Brothertonsaid, he would ask the House, whether they really wished to put an end to bribery? He did not think that men could be made honest by act of Parliament. The present bill, however, even if it did not answer all the objects for which it was intended, would have a moral effect on the country. It might be a discouragement to bribery, and make it fashionable for Members of Parliament to be elected without purchasing the votes of their constituents. As to the clause requiring a declaration to be made, that the Member did not nse bribery, he thought there could be no objection to it. The clause could do no harm. There were many who had no fear of doing wrong, who would, however, have a fear of being detected in it, and as the man who was bribed might inform against the briber, such a declaration might be salutary. He was, he confessed, strongly in favour of any plan which would have the effect of effectually putting an end to bribery.
Mr. Wakleythought the question which the hon. Gentleman who last spoke had put to the House was much more easily asked than answered. For his part, he firmly believed that House was not sincere in its desire of getting rid of those corrupt and infamous practices which went on at elections. There was, in his opinion, but
1440
one good cure for bribery, but that was a radical one; that cure was to be found in extending the constituencies, until they became too long for any pocket to reach them. He hoped the noble Lord, the Secretary for the Colonies, would get rid of his sentiments with regard to finality, and more especially from what his recent experience had taught him; and he (Mr. Wakley) trusted that noble Lord would, before long, come forward to propose that radical cure to which he had alluded. The declaration which had been introduced, might give the unscrupulous candidate an advantage over his more conscientious opponent. Besides, there were methods of taking advantage of it. Suppose, for instance, a man before an election put 4,000 l. into his banker's hands, and told his agent that this was to be used only for the strict legal expenses of the election; and desired him, moreover, to take care that such directions should be strictly adhered to on account of the declaration which he was to make. Did they think that the agent, whose interest it was to carry the election, would scruple to spend every farthing of that money in bribery because of such an injunction? In conclusion, he would beg the hon. Member for Limerick, not to divide the House upon the clause, and expressed a hope, that the noble Lord, the Secretary for the Colonies, would soon come forward with that radical cure which would be the most effectual means of putting an end to the evil complained of.
Lord J. Russellcould not undertake to give a declaration of any such intention as that which the hon. Member for Finsbury hinted at, because he thought it would be inoperative. With regard to the declaration, the propriety of which they were then discussing, if it had not a good effect, it would do harm; and he confessed that, having given that matter some very serious consideration, he could not persuade himself, that any very useful effect could be produced by this declaration, There were many persons who might not be guilty of any very corrupt practices, who might be unwilling, from conscientious scruples, to take such, a declaration. And with regard to the generality of persons, he feared they might not be at all deterred by such a declaration, but would, after a short time, and when its first terrors bad passed away, consider it, as many other things were considered, as merely a matter of course. He did not think it was expedient to have any

1441
new solemn declarations introduced which were not binding. He was by no means prepared to say, that this was a subject which would not be deserving of future consideration, but at present he was not disposed to adopt the clause then before them, and he hoped the House would not now press it.
Mr. S. O'Brienwould divide the committee upon the clause.
Mr. Courtenayapprehended legislation of that description was totally useless; and moreover, if such a clause as that was introduced, it would be unprecedented in the legislation of this country. He contended, that whenever they legislated uselessly, they legislated mischievously. He opposed the clause.
The committee divided: Ayes 22; Noes 51: Majority 29.

List of the AYES.

Armstrong, A.

Pryme, G.

Berkeley, hon. C.

Roche, W.

Brocklehurst, J.

Rundle, J.

Brotherton, J.

Stanley, hon. W. O.

Busfeild, W.

Turner, E.

D'Eyncourt, right hon. C. T.

Wilde, Sir T.

Williams, W.

Hawes, B.

Wood, Sir M.

Heathcoat, J.

Wood, B.

Hector, C. J.

Yates, J. A.

Humphery, J.

TELLERS.

Morris, D.

O'Brien, W. S.

Paget, Lord A.

Norreys, Sir D.

List of the NOES.

Ainsworth, P.

Lowther, J. H.

Attwood, W.

Mackenzie, W. F.

Baines, E.

Mackinnon, W. A.

Baldwin, C. B.

Maunsell, T. P.

Baring, right hn. F. T.

Milnes, R. M.

Barnard, E. G.

Morrison, J.

Barrington, Viscount

Ossulston, Lord

Buller, C.

Pakington, J. S.

Clay, W.

Palmer, G.

Clements, H. J.

Parker, J.

Cochrane, Sir T. J.

Perceval, Colonel

Courtenay, P.

Pusey, P.

Drummond, H. H.

Rae, right hon. Sir W.

Egerton, Sir P.

Rutherfurd, rt. hn. A.

Eliot, Lord

Sanderson, R.

Evans, W.

Sibthorp, Colonel

Gladstone, W. E.

Smith, B.

Grey, right hon. Sir G.

Thompson, Mr. Ald.

Grimsditch, T.

Trench, Sir F.

Hardinge, rt. hn. Sir H.

Troubridge, Sir E. T.

Hinde, J. H.

Walsh, Sir J.

Hodgson, R.

Wilbraham, G.

Inglis, Sir R. H.

Winnington, H. J.

Jones, Captain

Wood, G. W.

Kemble, H.

TELLERS.

Lefroy, right hon. T.

Warburton, H.

Listowel. Earl of

Hobhouse, T.

Clause rejected.
Mr. S. O'Brienmoved the following clause, of which he had also given notice:—
" And whereas doubts have arisen whether the payment by candidates of the travelling expenses of electors, and of other expenses necessarily incurred by electors in order to enable them to give their votes at elections, ought to be considered as bribery: Be it enacted, that in case any elector shall reside at a distance of more than five miles from the place of polling at which his vote is received, the payment of the expenses of such elector, by any candidate, shall not be deemed to be bribery, provided that the payment made to each such elector, in consideration of such expenses, shall not exceed an allowance of 5s. for his expenses at the place of poll, with an additional allowance of 6d. per mile for each mile of distance between the place of polling at which the vote of such elector is received, and the place at which such elector usually resides; but any payment to electors for their expenses other than the allowances aforesaid shall be deemed to be bribery under this act."
Sir R. Batesonsuggested, that it would remedy the inconvenience if the English system of having different polling places at convenient distances was introduced into Ireland.
Sir George Greyreminded his hon. Friend, the Member for Limerick, that the clause which he had proposed would be an infringement of the understanding on which the Bill had gone into committee, that nothing should be introduced defining what constituted bribery.
Mr. S. O'Briensaid, that in consequence of what had fallen from his right hon. Friend (Sir George Grey), he should not persevere in his motion.
Motion withdrawn.
The bill passed through committee.
House resumed.
The report to be further considered.

THAMES EMBANKMENT AND RAILWAY.
Sir F. Trenchrose pursuant to notice, to move the re-appointment of the Select Committee on Thames Embankment, for the purpose of considering evidence in support of a plan to form upon the embankment a quay of communication from Blackfriars-bridge to Hunger-ford-market; the whole expense of which can be provided for by a railroad between the same termini, without any demand for the public money, or any reference to the value of the land recovered from the river. The hon. Member said, that from the report of the committee appointed last year, it appeared, that in conse-

1443
quence of the works connected with the erection of the new London-bridge, the terrace on which the Houses of Parliament were building, and other extensive alterations in the river, a quantity of mud and rubbish had accumulated, which, besides causing inconvenient and irregular deeps and shallows, had, from vegetation springing up on the accumulated material, caused an unwholesome and polluted atmosphere along the banks of the river. The gentlemen of the city, it appeared, were afraid of the expense requisite to carry the desired improvement into effect. The hon. Member observed, that, in the committee of last year, evidence had been given of this fact, that the mud in the river had accumulated on each side to a very great extent, that in some places vegetation had actually commenced, and which was well manured from the filthy sewers, and that, in short, the atmosphere in the immediate neighbourhood of the banks was polluted almost to infection. The navigation of the river had been also very much impeded by the removal of the old London-bridge. Where the river was narrow the depth had increased, but where it was wide, shoals had been formed, upon which the backs of barges were very frequently broken; this circumstance also had the effect of keeping barges waiting the tide for two or three hours, the result of which was, that often a whole day was lost, and great expense incurred. By the plan proposed, no injury would be done to any persons engaged on the river, such as boatmen or bargemen; on the contrary, they would be enabled to navigate the river at periods when they could not do so at present, for a number of shoals would be removed, and the whole bed of the river deepened. No existing accommodation would be interfered with, the merchant would go to his wharf as at present, and the coal-barges, if they chose it, would lie as before, upon their soft mud. The adoption of a plan for such a quay would be a great improvement to the metropolis, and it would greatly facilitate the communication between one part of the town and another. He was aware that the Chancellor of the Exchequer had refused to make any advance of the public money for this purpose, but he was not surprised at this, as the right hon. Gentleman had so little at his disposal. He (Sir F. Trench), having regarded the subject as a most important one, and finding that the Chancellor of the Exchequer was not disposed to aid in carrying out the plan which had
1444
been suggested for removing these obstructions, finding also, that the committee had not been re-appointed, and being apprehensive that the land which he proposed to be redeemed from the river might pass into the hands of private companies —laid the plan before Lord Duncannon, as the head of the Woods and Forests, and his Lordship, after two or three days' consideration, had come to the opinion, that it was not only a practicable, but a desirable one. That noble Lord said, he thought he could not originate it himself, but that it should be submitted for discussion to Parliament. He (Sir F. Trench), at the desire of that noble Lord, had obtained the opinion of those eminent engineers, Sir F. Smith and Mr. Walker, who both concurred, that the plan was not only practicable, but might be executed with profit, and put into the hands of Government a large sum of money for the further improvement and embellishment of the metropolis on the southern side of the river Thames. He did not wish to carry the subject further at present than to obtain the evidence of those two gentlemen upon the plan, which he had suggested, in order, that it might be submitted to the Government in a proper and complete form, for it was by the Government, and not by a public company, he wished to see this project carried into effect. The railroad could be readily carried along the embankment, and the profits arising from it would be enormous; while the expense would be comparatively trifling. He had made some calculations on the subject, and he found if the charge was made at 6d. for railroad conveyance, from Hungerford to Blackfriars, four carriages going each way, and carrying each trip 48 passengers, the gross receipt in one year would be 104,832 l., which at 20 years purchase, represents a capital of 2,096,640 l., leaving a million at the disposal of the Government to be applied to the improvement of the banks of the river, and the embellishment of the metropolis. If the charge were but 3d., still there would be 500,000 l at the disposal of the Government, and the works all completed and paid for; and he was satisfied, that if the railway were extended to London Bridge, the profits would be doubled. By such a plan, a gentleman might be carried from London Bridge to Hungerford Market, in less than four minutes, and the railway would work in fog and frost, when

1445
the steamers could not, and the omnibuses could not, and when the Brighton and Kentish railways were brought to London Bridge, Gentlemen might imagine what an accession of passengers there would be; and what an accommodation lo the railroad travellers, instead of struggling slowly through crowded streets for half an hour or an hour, to be carried from London Bridge to Charing-cross in four minutes. In addition to the favourable opinion of the two engineers he had mentioned, Mr. Bidder, once known as the celebrated calculating boy, had gone over the figures with him, and had no doubt of their accuracy. When he explained to the noble Lord, at the head of the Woods and Forests, the great beauty and utility of his plan, that noble Lord said, he heartily wished it was in operation, for Mr. Barry, the architect of the new Houses, was constantly complaining of the inconvenience and expense of carrying off the rubbish by barges. The hon. Gentleman concluded by saying, that he hoped the House would accede to his motion, as he intended to go no further at present than obtain information on the subject.
Oh the question being put.
Mr. Harvessaid, that at this period of the Session it was utterly impossible for the House to go into an inquiry of this soft, involving as it did the interests of owners of property in the neighbourhood to an enormous amount, whilst the parties so interested had received no notice whatever upon the subject. The lion. Gentleman (Sir. F. Trench), proposed that the committee should sit one day to examine two Gentlemen on one side of the question, and on the evidence of these Gentlemen he was to found some plan for the Government to carry out. Why, he knew of twenty-two witnesses to be examined against it. In the last Session of Parliament, when the chairman of the navigation committee of the City of London, was examined before the committee relative to the proposed embankment, he was asked—" Suppose that a solid embankment is made and a carriage way along it, do you believe, that property would not be injured by it?" To which he replied—" I have no doubt of it." Then he was asked—" You do not consider that having that thoroughfare would compensate for the injury done by the removal of their premises from the banks of the river." And he answered—" I do not." He believed it to be utterly impracticable, and should the
1446
measure be carried out, utterly ruinous to property. However the House might be disposed to sympathise with the hon. and gallant Member, he deemed it impossible at this late period of the Session to have a fair inquiry entered into, because it must necessarily be an ex parte inquiry. He begged to say, that if driven to it he would divide the House upon the question.
Mr. Kembledoubted very much, even though a committee were granted, that the hon. and gallant Member would be able to get a sufficient number together to form a quorum. He, therefore, trusted that he would not persevere in his motion.
Mr. Prymesaid, he never saw a scheme that appeared to him prima facie to be more desirable. He hoped if the hon. and gallant Member was not able to obtain his committee this Session, he would in a future Parliament persevere in bringing forward his motion.
The Chancellor of the Exchequersaid, that he hoped the hon. and gallant Member would, in justice to his own project, and in justice to the various interests that would be affected by it, consent to withdraw his motion, and bring it forward at some future period. At this late period of the Session, he trusted, that the hon. and gallant Member, would not press the House to come to a decision upon this question.
Sir F. Trench withdrew his motion.
Adjourned.