Commons Sitting of 21 March 1848

MINUTES.
NEW WRIT.—For Aylesbury, v. John Peter Deering, Esq., void Election.
NEW MEMBER SWORN.—For Lincoln City, Thomas Benjamin Hobhouse, Esq.
PETITIONS PRESENTED.—By the Earl of Arundel and Surrey, from the Roman Catholic Clergy and Laity of Keighley (Yorkshire), in favour of the Roman Catholic Relief Bill.—By Mr. Houldsworth, from Members of the Congregation of Pepper Street, New Basford (Nottinghamshire), against Increase or Continuance of the Property Tax.

NEW WRIT—BEWDLEY.
MR. FORBES MACKENZIEmoved for a new writ for the borough of Bewdley, in the room of Mr. Ireland, whose election had been declared void.
MR. TATTON EGERTONdid not wish to object to the Motion, but he rose for the purpose of directing the attention of the House to the fact that the Committee had presented a special report in this case, and

847
it was for the House to declare whether, under such circumstances, a writ ought to issue forthwith. It was for the House to determine whether the vicious system of tampering with voters, and treating them to a very large extent, which appeared to have been followed both at the last election and at the previous election for that borough, ought to continue. It appeared from the report of the Committee that large bodies of men had been brought down at the late election for the purpose of assisting in protecting the voters—that every public-house in the town had been kept open, and a system of treating carried on to such an extent that the cost amounted to several hundred pounds. As he understood that the expense of printing the report and evidence would be very large, he did not wish to make a distinct Motion in this case, but he thought it was well worthy the consideration of the House whether some steps should not be taken for the proper protection of the exercise of the elective franchise.
MR. HUMEread a passage from the special report of the Committee confirming the statement made by the hon. Gentleman who preceded him, and said he should move that the writ do not issue until the evidence be printed.
MR. F. MACKENZIEwould not press for the issue of the writ under the circum-stances.
Motion withdrawn.

THE EX-ROYAL FAMILY OF FRANCE.
MR. CHARTERISbegged to ask the noble Lord the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether it were true, as reported, that the Marquess of Norman by, acting on instructions which he had received from the Foreign Office, had gone to M. Lamartine to apologise for this country having afforded an asylum to the Royal Family of France. He wished to state that he did not believe that the rumour had any foundation in fact, but he thought it was desirable that the noble Lord should have an opportunity of contradicting such a statement.
VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: There is no foundation for the statement that any communication of the kind to which the hon. Member has alluded has taken place, or has been sent from me to Lord Normanby, or through any other channel, in regard to the Royal Family of France. It is, however, true that Lord Normanby conveyed in a private letter to me a statement
848
that misapprehension and some degree of jealousy were likely to arise on the part of persons in France in regard to the reception which might be given in this country, not to the Royal Family of France, but to the late Ministry of the French Government; and I, in a private letter, desired Lord Normanby, in case of any such feeling being expressed to him, to state that the reception given to these persons was, and would be, the reception always given by this country to men who, from unfortunate circumstances, found themselves obliged to seek any asylum among us—the reception of hospitality; but that in all dealings with the French Government Her Majesty's Government would act honestly, fairly, and openly, and that in no case would there be the slightest ground for imputing to us any act hostile to them.
LORD DUDLEY STUARTbegged to ask his noble Friend whether there was any foundation for a rumour that some documents had come into the possession of the Provisional Government of France implicating the Duke and Duchess de Mont-pensier in some extraordinary transactions; and that these documents had the effect of hastening the departure of those personages from England?
VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: I am very glad that my noble Friend has put the question to me, if there appears to have been on the public mind any doubt on this matter. There has been no such communication made to Her Majesty's Government by the Provisional Government of France. I have not heard that any such correspondence, or any correspondence of any kind affecting the Duke and Duchess de Mont-pensier, has been discovered. I have no knowledge or belief of anything of the kind having taken place, and at all events no communication of the sort or kind has been made to me. With regard to the departure of the Duke and Duchess de Mont-pensier from this country, it was entirely the result of their own choice; and so far from that departure having been the result of any communication that had been made by us, I think the House will see that there are many reasons why we should think it desirable that they should remain here instead of going away.

STATE OF AUSTRIA.
LORD DUDLEY STUARTwished to ask another question of his noble Friend. He wished to know whether the noble Lord had received any intimation which he

849
could impart to the House with respect to a reported change of Government in Austria?
VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: The information which Her Majesty's Government has received is, that on the 14th instant Prince Metternich ceased to be the Minister of the Emperor of Austria. Beyond that, I have had no information.

BRAZIL.
LORD GEORGE BENTINCKsaid, he wished, in pursuance of the notice which he had given to the noble Lord opposite, to ask whether there was any truth in the statement which had appeared a few days since, to the effect that the negotiations between Lord Howden and the Government of Rio Janeiro had been brought to an unfavourable conclusion, and that notice had been given by the Brazilian Government of their intention still farther to raise the tariff against this country?
VISCOUNT PALMERSTON: I have to state, in reply to the question of my noble Friend, that the last despatch which we received from Lord Howden contained information exactly of the nature which my noble Friend has mentioned, namely, that the result of his communications with the Brazilian Government had led him to despair, for the present, of concluding a commercial treaty, or a treaty for the suppression of the slave trade, between this country and Brazil; but just at the moment of the packet sailing, he wrote a few lines to let me know that he thought it was possible that a change of opinion might take place on the part of the Brazilian Government on this subject. At the same time, I cannot hold out to the House any confident expectation that, in the present state of the Brazils, it is likely that any commercial treaty with this country can take place, as the Brazilians are averse to any avoidable treaties with foreign countries, and as they have a notion that we look upon their trade as so valuable that we are willing to carry on the commerce with them on almost any terms they choose to fix.

THE CASE OF MR. RAYSON.
MR. MONCKTON MILNESrose to bring under the consideration of the House the injuries alleged to have been suffered by Mr. Rayson, an English merchant, from the Austrian authorities at Constantinople. The hon. Gentleman observed, that he was aware of the great difficulty of
850
fixing the attention of the House on a matter of foreign policy; at the same time, he assured them that if they would bear with him for a few moments, he would place before them a case well deserving of their consideration. The present was not an ordinary case of grievance. Mr. Rayson had been endeavouring for sixteen years, by every legal and diplomatic course, to obtain redress for an undoubted injury; and for sixteen years as a British citizen he had attempted to get mere justice done him without intruding his business upon the House. Having waited so long and so patiently, he (Mr. Milnes) hoped the House would feel that in this case there was no quackery—no false attempt to attract attention; but that, as he had suffered severe injuries with the utmost patience, he at length, as dernier ressort, requested to have his case brought before the British House of Commons. The papers connected with the subject, which had been laid before the House of Commons, were described as "Papers relative to the claim of Mr. Ray-son on the Austrian Government;" but that title did not exactly indicate his claim. His claim was not upon the Government of Austria, as such; but he alleged that, as a British subject, he was deprived of his rights, and that he was not permitted to bring his case before any tribunal by fair means; that the case was taken out of the judicial course; and that his motives were misunderstood. Such being the case, and as Lord Palmerston had declared that he hardly hoped to obtain justice for him by diplomatic means, Mr. Rayson wished to be enabled by some means to state his case before an Austrian tribunal, and thus obtain the same justice conceded to an Austrian subject. Mr. Rayson was a merchant of high character and extensive means at Constantinople. In the year 1834 (sixteen years ago), a dispute relating to some commercial contracts occurred between him and Judah Bechar Mosé, a Jew of Jerusalem and an Austrian subject. The case was referred to arbitration, and it was distinctly agreed that the question should be adjudged by them on the understanding that if they could not agree, a third party should be nominated to act as umpire, whose decision was to be final. The arbitrators could not agree, and the case was referred to a third party, a gentleman named Wright. Mr. Wright confirmed the view taken by Mr. Rayson's arbitrator, pronounced the views of that person to be just, and declared that the

851
arbitration should be so made. Mosé, however, as an Austrian subject, appealed against the decision of Mr. Wright, and brought the case into the Court of Inter-nunciature. The judge of the court (the Internuncio) took upon himself to decide upon the case. He examined into the circumstances, and finding that the super arbiter (Mr. Wright) had only communicated with each of the other arbitrators by reading their opinions, and not by personal interviews, pronounced the arbitration of Mr. Wright invalid and contrary to law. The decision was therefore annulled, and Mr. Rayson was defrauded of his property. He protested against the decision, and on the 3rd of April he memorialised the British Consul General, demonstrating the injustice and absurdity of his opponent's allegations; and urging, in substance, that, according to the regulations ever observed between the Christian Legations at Constantinople, it was for him, the British Consul General, and by no means for the Austrian Internunciature, to decide (in the usual manner) on the question of Mosé's appeal, inasmuch as the superarbitral suit was fully and finally closed on the emission of the definitive superarbitral sentence; and that if Mosé could be allowed at all to appeal against it, he could only do so as plaintiff in the court of the British Consulate. But his Majesty's Consul General did not feel himself authorised to assert this right, and Rayson was therefore obliged to defend the validity of the superarbitral sentence, in a court totally incompetent to entertain the cause, and under a character at once anomalous and highly detrimental to his interests; for here, by the apparent indifference of Rayson's authorities, Mosé succeeded in getting the suit out of the hands of the superarbitral judges, into a regular judicial court (always presupposing that the Austrian Internuncio could only institute it, and not act as judge himself). So that each party was thus made plaintiff and defendant in the same suit. He also petitioned his Majesty's Consul General to obtain for him from the Austrian Internunciature the due execution of the sentence; and, in case this was not granted, then, at least, security for the amounted awarded him, until the question of Mosés appeal should be decided. This was in 1834. Certain circumstances led him to believe that he could not obtain justice in Constantinople, and he resolved to repair to Vienna. It appeared that he had employed at Con-
852
stantinople a Sicilian lawyer, renowned as the most able advocate in the city, but who, it seemed, was an object of hostility to the Austrian Government. Mr. Rayson had never mixed himself up with politics, and declared that he knew nothing of any political circumstances relating to his advocate. Mr. Rayson admitted that he had used strong language with respect to the corruption of the Internuncio's court, and in this he was justified, as Prince Metternich had admitted it himself. In the year 1835 Mr. Rayson went to Vienna, and having obtained the opinions of two of the most eminent advocates in that city, laid his case before his Majesty's Ambassador at that Court. Notwithstanding all the efforts of that nobleman, he was unable to obtain justice. Mr. Rayson was then advised to submit the affair to the British Government. This was done on the 23rd of May, 1837; and, in answer to Mr. Rayson's memorial to Lord Palmerston. Her Majesty's Ambassador at Vienna was, in October, 1837, instructed to represent the affair to the Austrian Government, and state "that Her Majesty's Government, having had Mr. Rayson's case under consideration, had judged his claims to be of a nature to merit its countenance and support." These instructions were communicated to the Austrian Government under date October 28, 1837. In consequence of this interposition, the Austrian Government found it necessary to demand from the Internuncio a full account of the entire procedures; and his Excellency in turn had to call his subaltern, Baron de Testa, to account, who, in a document dated the 23rd of January, 1838, gave a very garbled statement of the affair, and pleaded in justification, that the before-mentioned Government order, dated the 19th of September, 1838, although contrary to Austrian law, yet the Internunciature had endeavoured, as far as possible, to reconcile its procedures thereto; and that a summary procedure of Her Majesty's Consul General in a case affecting the interests of an Austrian subject, had afforded a good precedent for those of the Austrian Internunciature. After waiting in vain, for several months, the result of the representations made to the Austrian Government by Her Majesty's Ambassador, Rayson was advised again to petition his Imperial Royal Majesty, with the object of obtaining a revision of his case by some competent internal court of the empire; and a petition to that effect, dated April

853

11, 1838, was presented, but the result was not communicated to Rayson before the 10th of October, 1838, when he was informed by a note from Her Majesty's Ambassador, that by a decree dated the 20th of August, 1835, the Austrian Internunciature at Constantinople had revoked the two decrees of the 8th and 18th of April, 1835, against which Rayson had protested. Her Majesty's Ambassador was not informed of this revocation till two months after the date of that act, and then only on his Excellency's application to the Austrian Government. Mr. Rayson was all this time waiting in Vienna to learn the result of his petition, which, if duly communicated to him, would have entirely prevented the loss of time, so injurious to his interests. Immediately on receipt of this communication, Rayson returned to Constantinople, where he obtained a copy of the decree of revocation, which, without giving any grounds, merely says, that "by superior order of the Imperial Royal Supreme Tribunal of Justice at Vienna, the Internuncio revokes the two decrees of the 8th and 18th of April, 1835." Seeing that the only hindrance to the execution of the superarbitral sentence had been removed by the revocation in question, Mr. Rayson hoped to find on his return to Constantinople that it had already been executed by the Internunciature, in compliance with his most formal demand. But the sentence had not been executed as expected, and Rayson was therefore obliged once more formally to petition, under date, for its being done; and as the Internunciature paid no attention to his petition, he renewed his demand on the 18th December, 1838, and on the 21st December, 1838, the Internunciature notified to Her Majesty's Consulate, that the former could not oblige Mosé to answer Rayson's demand, dated 30th November, 1838 (twenty-two days before), until the fourteen days from the latter date had elapsed. The laws of the Austrian civil code regarding "execution" were as stringent as those of Great Britain, and did not allow a moment's delay in those cases, much less fourteen days; but twenty-two days were taken on the most unwarrantable pretext, and on the 27th of December, 1838 (twenty-seven days after Rayson's formal demand for execution), it was notified to Her Majesty's Consulate, "that Mosé had been reclaimed by the Ottoman Government as a Turkish subject, and that
854
from this date henceforward he had ceased to enjoy Austrian protection." He would not now enter into the subject of the protection afforded to foreigners in Turkey by the Austrian Internuncio; but it was evident that if it were permitted to a subject of any Power to place himself under the protection of a foreign embassy, and then, when pursued for a just debt, to get himself transferred from that protection to another, there must be an end to all commercial transactions. Mr. Rayson asked on what grounds this claim of the Ottoman Government of Mosé Dekker, as their subject; had been made, and he received no answer. He asked if the Austrian Internuncio had allowed him to be taken under Turkish protection without protest; and the Austrian Internuncio did not venture to state that he had made the least resistance to this claim. No doubt if the Austrian Internuncio had represented the circumstances of the case to the Turkish Government, that Government would not have enforced their claim at that moment. They would have said you must remain an Austrian subject until this matter is decided. Thus after three years of anxiety, Mr. Rayson found that he had not advanced one step, and that all his money had been wasted. He applied again to Lord Beauvale, who expressed his conviction that the Home Government would see justice done. The matter was laid before the law officers of the Crown, who gave it as their opinion that, as our courts would afford no remedy to an Austrian subject under similar circumstances, so neither could any remedy be afforded by law to Mr. Rayson, forgetting; however, that the position of Mr. Rayson was totally different from that which any Austrian subject could by possibility occupy, relative to any of the courts of justice of this country. The decision of the Supreme Court of Vienna declared that the Internuncio at Constantinople had interfered illegally, and his decree having been revoked, Mr. Rayson had a just claim against the Internuncio. The case had been submitted to De Retz, a leading advocate of Vienna, who had given it as his opinion that decidedly Mr. Rayson had a just claim against the Internuncio. Acting on this opinion, under the advice of Lord Beauvale, Mr. Rayson had applied to have his complaint against the Internuncio brought before the Austrian Court at Vienna, and eventually it had been referred to the Chancery of the Em-

855
pire, which was analogous to the Foreign Office; in fact, it had been referred to Prince Metternich himself. Lord Beau-vale had frequently applied to Prince Metternich on the subject, and he could get no satisfactory answer. At last, in 1839, a decree was issued by Prince Metternich, overruling the decision of the Supreme Court in Mr. Rayson's favour, and declaring, contrary to the laws of Austria, that the Supreme Court had no jurisdiction over the Internuncio of Constantinople. Prince Metternich, in doing this, had ventured to decide a question which was never brought before him; and on hearing of the decree, Lord Beauvale urged Prince Metternich, but in vain, to do justice. Under these circumstances Mr. Rayson applied to the noble Lord opposite (Lord Palmerston), who at that time held the situation he at present fills, for redress; and he would do his noble Friend the justice to say that his noble Friend had exerted himself to the utmost of his power to procure for this British subject the justice which was wrongfully withheld from him by the Austrian Government; and had the noble Lord continued in office he believed that that justice would have been obtained; but unfortunately for Mr. Rayson the noble Lord was on the point of quitting office. Mr. Rayson renewed his application, and the Earl of Aberdeen, who succeeded the noble Lord, did not at first take the same view of the case that his noble Friend had done, and instead of following up his noble Friend's remonstrances to the Court of Vienna, he recommended Mr. Rayson to follow up Mosé Bekker in the Turkish courts.
House counted out, and adjourned at Seven o'clock.