Lords Sitting of 1 May 1815

NAPLES.
Earl Greysaid, their lordships would recollect, that a few days ago, previous to his giving notice of a motion on the subject of our existing relations with the Government of Naples, and on which their lordships stood summoned for to-morrow, he had put some questions to a noble earl. To these, his not receiving a satisfactory answer, was the cause of his having given notice of a motion. Previous to his bringing it on, however, he begged leave to ask that noble lord, whether he now deemed it consistent with his duty to give certain explanations on the subject; and, in that view, he would trouble him but on two points. First, Whether we were actually at war with Naples; and it so, whether, as was customary, any communication would be made to Parliament on the subject? And secondly, if we were not at war, whether any discussions were

999]
now going forward, or likely to take place between us and that Government, from which it might be hoped that hostilities may be avoided?
The Earl of Liverpool, in answer to what fell from the noble earl, stated, that their lordships might be aware an armistice had been concluded between marshal Murat and the commander-in-chief of his Majesty's forces in that quarter. With reference to this, a notice had been given by the latter to marshal Murat, that if he should commit any hostile acts against his Majesty's ally, he should consider it as a breach of the armistice between the two countries. Whether any hostile steps had occurred between the British and the Neapolitan forces he could not say; but from what had taken place on the part of the latter, the armistice was considered to be at an end. With respect to the second point, whether there were any discussions going on between the two countries for the establishment of peace, he could not say there were any negociations going on at present that could render the notice of the noble lord nugatory.
Earl Greyreplied, that he understood from the noble lord that hostilities were now actually revived between the two countries. But their lordships would re-collect, that we had been, in effect, at peace with the Government of Naples for the last twelve months; and that, from the statement of the noble lord, the necessity followed of a regular declaration that a state of hostility was renewed. He thought, therefore, that a communication should be made to Parliament on the subject; and on which occasion, a discussion on the merits of the case would preferably ensue. He again asked if any such communication was intended?
The Earl of Liverpoolsaid, he had not received any command to make such a communication.
Lord Greythen asked, was it probable that such a communication would be made? and (after a word or two from the noble earl across the table, in an under voice) proceeded to observe, that it appeared very extraordinary to him, that no communication should be made to Parliament, in a case, where though no formal peace had been made, a state of hostility was avowedly entered into. He gave notice, that he would bring on his motion to-morrow.

GAOL FEES ABOLITION BILL.
The
[1000
House being in a Committee on the Bill,
Lord Ellenboroughproposed the insertion of an amendment of some length, the principal object of which appeared to be to prevent any thing in the Act from operating to the prejudice of the sheriff, who otherwise, though an innocent person, may be affected injuriously.
The amendment was adopted.
The Marquis of Buckinghamunderstood that the exception of the Fleet, King's-bench, and Marshalsea, and Palace-court prisons, from the operation of the Bill, arose from there being yet no other allowance for keeping up the establishment of these prisons than what arose from Gaol Fees. There was a report from a committee of the House of Commons on the subject, and he should move to-morrow for a copy of that Report.
The Lord Chancellorstated, that he had received a great many clauses to be inserted with respect to the London gaols, which appeared very proper in themselves, but if they were introduced into that House, would endanger the loss of the Bill altogether, and prevent, for the time, the good which it was calculated to do. His lordship stated what had been proved at the bar on a former occasion, that the city of London expended no less a sum, than 15,000 l. in providing comforts for their prisoners; and if the fees of their gaols were put an end to, they must increase their gaolers salaries, and could not afford so great a sum for their prisoners. The fees in all gaols being abolished, prisoners having a power of removing themselves would crowd to the London gaols for the sake of the allowance, and this would be more particularly the case when the new gaol should be built. It would be desirable not to check the hand of charily, and yet it would be improper to risk the loss of the Bill: the best course appeared to be to make the clauses in question the subject of a separate Bill, which might be passed this session, and for these reasons he refrained from proposing them at present.
The Marquis of Lansdowneconcurred with the noble and learned lord as to the best course of proceeding, but did not think that the abolition of the fees would tend much to crowd the London gaols. A removal could not be accomplished at a less expense than 6l., and to those who could afford this, the fees could not be a great object.
The Bill passed through the Committee.