Lords Sitting of 16 August 1836

MINUTES.
Bills. Read a third time:—Church Temporalities (Ireland); Slave Owners' Compensation; Slave Treaties; Exchequer Offices (Ireland); Creditors (Scotland) Bills; Common Fields Inclosure.—Read a second time:—. Inns and Alehouses; Pension Duties; Poor Law Loans; Coal Trade.—Read a first time:—Exchequer Bills; Consolidated Fund; Copyright; List of Voters; Municipal Funds; Municipal Boundaries; Municipal Jurisprudence.
Petitions presented. By Lord WHARNCLIFFE, from St. Andeon and St. Nicholas, Dublin, against allowing Grocers to sell Spirits; and from Birmingham and Leeds, against extending the time for opening and closing Inns and Alehouses.

GREEK LOAN.
Viscount Melbourne, in moving the Order of the Day for the House to go into Committee on the Greek Loan Bill, acknowledged that the subject to which it related was one of very great importance, and, if followed up, would open a variety of views with respect to the foreign relations and foreign policy of this country; but the only question involved in the Bill turned on one point, and was confined to a very narrow compass. He should, therefore, content himself with briefly explaining the grounds on which he meant to move that the Bill
1240
should go into Committee. Their Lordships were well aware of the circumstances which led to the separation of the territory of Greece from the dominions of Turkey, under the administration of the noble Duke opposite. A Sovereign was subsequently elected to rule over Greece, and a guarantee, of a pecuniary nature, was entered into, for the purpose of enabling him to undertake that high situation. It was the intention of the noble Duke and of his Government, as Greece was in a most impoverished state, a long war having necessarily exhausted its resources, to give to that country pecuniary assistance in the first place. He did not mean to say, that it was then intended to grant assistance to the same amount, or on the same conditions, as had been afterwards determined on. In coming to that determination it was necessary to look to the new circumstances which had arisen, and it was with a view to those circumstances that this country had become a party to certain engagements. On the 7th of May, 1832, a convention was concluded at London between England, France and Russia, by which the three Powers engaged to supply the Government of Greece with a sum of money, the principal of which amounted to 60,000,000 francs, being 20,000,000 francs each. That convention was laid before Parliament, and was the subject of debate both in that and in the other House. The Act of the 3d of William 4th, which was passed on the 16th of August, 1832, empowered his Majesty to carry into effect the convention of the 7th of May, and under the third section of the Act the first instalment was paid. Prior to this, however, a dispute had arisen relative to the boundaries of Greece; and on the 21st of July, 1832, Sir Stratford Canning concluded a treaty with the Porte, by which the north-eastern boundary of Greece was extended and rendered more secure. By that treaty the Porte consented to cede to Greece the provinces anciently known as Acarnania and Natolia, on the payment of 40,000,000 Turkish piastres. This treaty was soon after ratified, and the payment of the second instalment of the loan guaranteed became necessary. The sum for which the Porte had given up the two provinces was, as he had already said, 40,000,000 piastres, or about 11,220,000 francs, which lowered to that extent the amount of the sum guaranteed by the tripartite convention, to be applied to the in-

1241
ternal affairs of Greece. The consequence was, that within a short time the Government of Greece complained, through the Minister of that country, of a great want of funds. It was necessary to provide for the interest and sinking fund of the loan, which required 2,212,000 francs, and it was proposed to advance 6,000,000 francs of the third instalment. Hitherto the three Powers had acted in concurrence, but when the British Minister came to confer with the Minister of Russia on this subject, he found that a very great difference of opinion prevailed. The French Minister was ready to guarantee, on the part of his Government, the third of the remaining 20,000,000 francs, and to allow it to be at once advanced for the service of the Grecian Government, but the Russian Minister took a different view of the matter. He was not willing that the third of the loan which was guaranteed by Russia should be advanced, but he proposed that it should be doled out in such sums as would enable Greece to pay the interest and sinking fund of the loan. Now, his Majesty's Government were of opinion, that the course proposed by the Minister of Russia was open to serious objection. In the first place, it was not conformable to the convention of the 7th of May, 1832, by which it was intended that the sum guaranteed should be applied, in the first instance, to enable the Government to give a firm constitution to the state. In the second place, it would be very injurious, in the present state of Greece, while that state was to be attributed to circumstances which the government could not control. The insurrections which had been excited in Greece rendered a large increase of force necessary, and a consequent increase of expense. This last evil would be best met by the energy, the spirit, and the resolution of the Government, and by the gallantry displayed by the native troops that had been employed to put down those disturbances. In the third place, it was evident that the course proposed by the Russian Minister was contrary to the independence of the Greek nation, because it would enable Russia to keep up a general sort of control over the conduct of the Government and over the finances of the country hereafter. Such a proceeding was manifestly inconsistent with that independent condition in which the policy and the reason of the convention clearly intended that Greece should be placed in. Under these circumstances
1242
it was that the present Bill was proposed to Parliament, the object of which was to enable his Majesty to authorise the payment of the third instalment of the loan, without the concurrence of Russia or France. It was not in his power to go into a minute statement of the finances of Greece; but looking to the information of competent persons, looking to the knowledge of those who represented his Majesty in that country, he had every reason to believe, that if peace were preserved, and the government properly administered, that country would be able to meet the charge which it had incurred under this convention. That the government would be advantageously administered he did not doubt, when he looked at the character displayed, the conduct pursued, and the wisdom exhibited, by those who at present possessed the confidence of the King of Greece. The noble Viscount concluded by moving that the House consider the Bill in Committee.
The Duke of Wellingtonsaid, it appeared to him that it was not necessary to take the occasion of the introduction of this Bill to enter into a general discussion with reference to the foreign policy of this country. A good deal could certainly be said on the subject; but he did not think that it would tend to any useful object to introduce such a discussion at present, nor was it desirable, for various reasons, to be drawn into a discussion of so wide a nature under existing circumstances. At the same time, he must say, that this was a transaction of such a description, that it required some degree of notice. He should, therefore, draw their Lordships' attention to some of the circumstances that were connected with it, and to some of the consequences that might grow out of it—consequences which might prove extremely inconvenient to the country. The noble Viscount had accurately stated the circumstances which led to this transaction. It certainly was in contemplation, in 1830, to make a loan, for the purpose of establishing a government in Greece, and, he believed, on the same plan as was adopted with respect to the loan which was settled in 1832. The Greek state was established under the auspices and influence of the three great powers—Russia, France, and England. It was agreed, that a loan was to be made by the three powers, each guaranteeing a similar amount, each guaranteeing the payment of the principal and interest of one-third of 60,000,000 francs.

1243
It might be said, that each power ought to be at liberty to guide and determine its own conduct with respect to this loan; but certainly, the principle that pervaded the whole transaction amongst these three powers with respect to Greece was, that the proceeding should be carried on by common accord. If there were to be any interference whatever in the internal affairs of any state, it was fit and proper that that interference should be affected by many states rather than by one state. The independence of the state, whose concerns were thus interfered with, would be better preserved by two, or three, or four states, than by one state. Such interference was likely to be less injurious to the power and situation of the state interfered with than if the matter were taken up by a single state. Laying that down as a principle, he contended for this, that the policy of such arrangements, and the policy of this particular engagement, was, that it should be carried into execution (although on the responsibility of each state for its own share of the loan), with one common accord. The first instalment was settled by common accord, the second instalment was made by common accord, and the same principle ought to have been acted on with reference to the third. The noble Viscount, in stating what had occurred just now, had endeavoured to show to their Lordships that he could not obtain the consent of Russia with respect to the last advance to be made to Greece under this arrangement. It appeared to him that proper measures were not taken to induce Russia to make the advance necessary for Greece on that occasion. The first demand made by Greece was for 3,000,000f. Why, he would ask, was not a strong effort made to obtain the consent of Russia to make the advance of her share of the 3,000,000 francs? Why was Russia left out of that part of the negotiation? Why was any encouragement given to leave any part of the sum due in the hands of Russia? If Russia had been called on for her portion, it would be found to amount very nearly to the sum which this country was about to advance under existing circumstances; and the consequence would have been this —that the three powers would now be placed on precisely the same footing, which was the situation in which they ought to stand. They would be thus placed, not only with reference to Greece, but in relation to each other, as well as to the other powers of Europe. But how would it be
1244
hereafter? Great Britain would be a creditor of Greece to the amount of 20,000,000 francs, with a claim on the resources of Greece, which must, and would, be pressed for the interest and sinking fund of that amount of debt. Russia, on the other side, would have in hand the third part of 20,000,000 francs, to issue to Greece whenever and under whatever circumstances she thought proper. France was placed in a similar situation. He did not mean to speak with any jealous feeling of France or Russia; but they would be strangely mistaken with reference to the general policy of other states, if they did not conclude that they were giving a great advantage to Russia and France, when they left in their hands the power of making these advances at such times and seasons as they pleased. They no longer stood in any other position but as the creditors of Greece. And, he would ask, was that the attitude in which they should be placed? Was that the situation in which these relations, formed by the convention, should stand? The Emperor of Russia, he was aware, stated, that he kept this money for the purpose of meeting the interest and sinking fund of those sums already advanced by the former instalments of this loan. Unfortunately they had set him the example of walking alone with respect to these engagements. They had set him the example by making a movement without his consent, and without the consent of France; and he was much mistaken if, to aid the purposes of those powers, they would not take the same advantage of their position, to make advances when they thought it most conducive to their interests, and act by themselves, as England had done on this occasion. Though he admitted the propriety of the advance of 6,000,000 francs for the Greek government, yet he could not allow that it was expedient that it should be advanced, and solely advanced, by this country, without the accordance of the other parties.
Viscount Melbourneperfectly concurred in the sentiment of the noble Duke, that it would have been better if the three states could have been brought to act together; and he admitted also, that the course which had been pursued was liable to some of the inconveniences which the noble Duke had stated; but, under the peculiar circumstances of the case, this government could only do that which had been done. They had not, certainly, followed up the principle of the arrangement

1245
with which this transaction commenced, but they were forced to depart from it by an imperative necessity. He trusted, however, that the course which had been pursued, involved no risk of this country separating her policy from that of France and Russia in respect of Greece.
Bill went through the Committee, and was reported.

CIVIL OFFICES' DECLARATION BILL.
Viscount Duncannon Viscount Duncannon moved the second reading of the above Bill, the object of which was to enable individuals to fill certain municipal offices by making a declaration instead of taking an oath.
The Duke of Wellingtonopposed the motion. He was astonished that a Bill of so much importance, and which affected a great principle, should have passed the House of Commons with scarcely any observation. Their Lordships were taken by surprise, and he would not consent, at this late period of the Session, to proceed with the measure. He should, therefore, move, that the Bill be read a second time this day three months.
Lord Hollandhoped, that the indulgence meant to be extended to individuals by this measure would not be refused, and that their Lordships would proceed with the second reading.
Lord Wynfordcould not agree to the measure. It was opposed to the principle on which the Test and Corporation Repeal Act was founded. The declaration required by that Bill was, on "the true faith of a Christian," which emphatic expression was omitted here.
The Archbishop of Canterburyexpressed his entire concurrence in what had been said by the noble Duke and the noble and learned Lord. He was convinced, that when those words were used in the Test and Corporation Repeal Act, they were intended as a religious test, and he did not think that any man who was a Christian could object to them.
The Marquess of Buteobjected to a Bill of so much importance being brought before their Lordships at so late a period of the Session, when it was impossible to give it that discussion which it required; but as it was before their Lordships, he felt that he could not refuse to assent to its principle. There were, however, parts of it to which he had objections, and those objections might possibly be removed in
1246
Committee. If, therefore, the House divided, he would vote for the second reading. He owned that he saw no ground for calling on the name of God, or for any such solemn declaration "on the true faith of a Christian," on the acceptance of a civil office. When the party taking office, made a simple declaration that he would do all in his power to maintain religion, as by law established, it was quite enough, without making a solemn appeal to God. He thought the "declaration" would be much better without the words "in the presence of God, and on the true faith of a Christian," and he took blame to himself, that at the time of the passing of the Test and Corporation Repeal Bill, he did not endeavour to have those words modified. Considering the change which municipal corporations had recently undergone, such a declaration was less necessary than before. Corporations were now little more than commissioners for watching, paving, and lighting their respective towns, and the great object in the selection was, to get the most fit and proper persons for that purpose. Surely, it was not necessary that men chosen for such a purpose, should make a solemn declaration "in the presence of God, and on the true faith of a Christian." He regretted that this Bill had not come up to their Lordships at an earlier period, and he thought if there was any ground for refusing the Bill, that would be a good one, though, as he had said, he did not intend to avail himself of it. If he were disposed to oppose the Bill, he should not feel deterred by the remarks made about their Lordships throwing out Bills. He thought that they would consult the advantage of the country, if they rejected many other Bills, which had been sent up to them, in order to correct the present practice of sending up a number of important Bills, at a period of the Session, when it was impossible to give them mature consideration. Here were a parcel of Bills laid on their Lordships' table in the middle of August when, as he had said, it was impossible to have them discussed with advantage. Such a system, would, however, he had no doubt, effect its own cure.
Their Lordships divided on the original motion: Contents 27; Not-contents 43: Majority 16.

List of the CONTENTS.

Lord Chancellor

Minto

DUKES.

VISCOUNTS.

Argyll

Melbourne

Leinster

Duncannon

MARQUESSES.

Falkland

Lansdowne

BARONS.

Headfort

Saye and Sele

Queensberry

Dinorben

Westminster

Ducie

Bute

Mostyn

EARLS.

Barham

Albemarle

Strafford

Chichester

Foley

Charlemont

Gardner

Ilchester

Templemore

Leitrim

Holland

Bill read a second time.

Bill put off for three months.

CORPORATE PROPERTY (IRELAND).
The House went into Committee on the Corporate Property (Ireland) Bill.
On the 1st Clause,
Lord Lyndhurstsaid, that he had some amendments to propose. The purport of them was to prevent the alienation of Corporate property in Ireland till the 1st of September, 1837, or till such intervening time, as Parliament might otherwise provide, except such alienation as might be the consequence of bonâ fide contracts, entered into before such date as their Lordships might fix in the Bill, and also excepting such alienations and disposition of property, as might be necessary to carry on the business of the corporations. He would move those amendments, without intending any discussion on them at present, but have them printed with the Bill, and their discussion could be taken on a future day, on the report. He would also object to some words in the preamble, to which he had stated his objection yesterday. He hoped, as this was a sort of compromise between him and the noble Viscount, that the noble Viscount would not object to the omission of those words in the second clause, "or any future reformation of such corporations." Those words would seem to imply that such a measure was intended.
Those words were, on the motion of the noble and learned Lord, struck out. The clauses were agreed to, and the House resumed.

PRISONERS' COUNSEL BILL.
Viscount Melbourne Viscount Melbourne moved, that the Commons' Amendments to the Amendments of the Lords to this Bill, be taken into consideration.
Lord Lyndhurst Lord Lyndhurst moved, that their Lordships do adhere to those amendments to the Bill, which the Commons had struck out. The Lords had struck out that part of the Bill, which would give to the counsel of the prisoner the last word. In supporting the general principle of the Bill, when it came up from the other House, he was anxious to get rid of the anomalies which existed in the trial of prisoners. The other House had, however, set up another anomaly. The usual practice in our civil courts was, that the accuser should prove the affirmative of his statement, that the accused should reply, and then that the accuser should set the matter to rights, as consistent with his original statement. The Commons had, however, given to the accused, the right to have the last word in every case, except cases of treason, or misprision of treason. Now, this was an anomaly as great as any they sought to correct, for if there were any case in which the prisoner ought to have greater latitude extended to him than another, it was that of treason, yet that was the only case in which the accused was deprived of the advantage of the last word in addressing the jury. Another anomaly was this:—In the case of an assault, a man might proceed by indictment, or by civil action. In the former case, the defendant's counsel would have the last word to the jury; but in the civil action, arising out of the same case, the last word would he not for the defendant, but the plaintiff. For these anomalies, and for the reasons which he had stated, when the measure was formerly under discussion, he hoped their Lordships would adhere to the amendments they had made.
The Lord Chancellorregretted, that his noble and learned Friend should feel disposed to persevere in the amendments which he had moved, for, from what he had heard, he believed it would cause the loss of the Bill in the other House, and he should he sorry to see a measure defeated the principle of which had been so generally approved of. He, himself, could have wished that the clause in the Bill, as it came from the Commons, had been somewhat differently framed, but he did most fully approve of the principle of the prisoner's counsel having the last word in addressing the jury. The practice in civil cases, where the defendant's counsel was obliged to forego the examination of witnesses, and thus keep the means of ascertaining the whole truth from the jury, in order to deprive the plaintiff's counsel of a

1249
reply, was a very bad one. He was opposed to any practice which would keep a knowledge of the whole truth from the jury. He did hope, that rather than risk the loss of the Bill, his noble and learned Friend would give way.
Lord Wynfordsaid, he should be sorry to lose the Bill; for, on consideration, he gave his cordial assent to its principle; but, whatever the consequence might be to the Bill, he thought their Lordships ought to adhere to their amendments, which he considered of vital importance.
Lord Wharncliffewould vote for the Lords adhering to their amendments.
Lord Lyndhurstthought it was not regular in any noble Lord, and still less so in the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, to suggest the course which might be taken by the other House as a ground for influencing their Lordships' opinions. Their Lordships could not know prospectively what course the other House might take in consequence of any act or proceeding in their Lordships' House, and therefore should not be in any way influenced by it.
Lord Hollandsaid, it was not irregular to speculate on what the other House might do in any particular case, but there was an irregularity which was regularly committed every day amongst their Lordships, which passed without notice. It was that of alluding to what the Commons might do in case of their Lordships interfering with money Bills. This was certainly irregular, for though he admitted that it was prudent in their Lordships to abstain from doing so, yet he must add, that their Lordships' right to do so was one which they never had conceded. If the noble and learned Lord persevered, he supposed this Bill must be lost, but it did not surprise him. The noble and learned Lord was now quite used to the practice of throwing out Bills. He began by throwing out those of others, and he was now ending by throwing out one of his own.
Lord Lyndhurst: Not my own, I do not object to the Bill, but to the incrustation which it got elsewhere.
Commons amendments disagreed to and a Committee appointed to draw up reasons to be communicated to the Commons at a conference for not agreeing to their amendments.

TITHE COMPOSITIONS (IRELAND.)
Viscount Melbourne Viscount Melbourne moved the second
1250
reading of the Irish Tithe Compositions Bill. Their Lordships would recollect, he said, that in the year 1833, a great expectation was entertained of the tithe question being settled, and under that impression an Act was introduced, empowering the Lords of the Treasury, out of the million allocated to them for that purpose, to advance sums to those who had been defrauded of their tithes, and kept from that which was lawfully due to them in the shape of property. A great many individuals received assistance, and observations had been made elsewhere upon the names of those to whom relief had been thus afforded, which he thought very unjust, and which must have arisen from a great misconception of the Act. It had been erroneously considered as only intended to relieve the clergy; but its great and material object was to prevent the continuance of litigation upon the subject. The parties owning this species of property had only one of three courses to pursue—to seek for the recovery of their tithes by the ordinary and legal means—a course from which the Parliament and the Government dissuaded them—entirely to abandon their claim for tithes, absolutely giving up their property without any equivalent for it—or to take the relief afforded to them under that Act. It could hardly be expected that they would abandon their tithes altogether; the first course was contrary to the policy of the Legislature. The observations that had been made, therefore, upon those who adopted the third course, originated in a misapprehension of the objects for which the Act was passed. Their Lordships were aware that in the Act for settling the question of tithe a clause was introduced for remitting the million loan in certain cases. That Bill having failed, it was the object of this Bill to give a discretion to the Lords of the Treasury to proceed for the recovery of what was advanced, with certain exceptions. For example, if persons had received the tithes of 1834 and 1835, and had also received the loan for those tithes, there was no reason why the Treasury should not call upon them to repay the advances made to them. The noble Viscount concluded by moving the second reading of the Bill.
The Marquis of Westmeathsaid, that a great many misstatements had gone abroad with respect to the. loan under the last Act. It was not, as it had been stated to be, a

1251
loan to the clergy exclusively; for it was distinctly stated in the House of Commons that lay impropriators might avail themselves of the loan, and they had done so; and the Treasury could not have advanced money to them unless a majority of the House of Commons (but he did not think any division took place on the question) had made it lawful to do so. The noble Viscount had referred to the obloquy which was thrown upon those lay impropriators who had availed themselves of the loan. If he (the Marquess of Westmeath) understood the matter rightly, the Lords of the Treasury were not to call upon any persons for the tithes of which they were deprived in 1833, unless they had received the whole or the greater part of the tithes of 1834 and 1835. Why, those persons were excluded by law from recovering the tithes of 1833, and were they now to be called upon to pay that of which they had not received one farthing, and which they could not now possibly recover? If that was the intention of the Bill, he must say that it was most unreasonable; but he took it for granted that the Lords of the Treasury would not misuse the power intrusted to them; With respect to the repayment of the loan, he thought that the provisions of the Bill were just—but he protested against the Treasury having a discretionary power to sue for the tithes of 1833. Neither the law nor the state of the country had permitted those tithes to be collected.
The Archbishop of Armaghsaid, it is not my intention to offer any opposition to the Bill in its present stage, because I do not wish to take upon myself the responsibility of the rejection of the Bill. But it appears to me to be founded in injustice, and I trust, my Lords, that you will be of the same opinion when I state, that it gives a freedom to persons who have disobeyed the laws and refused to pay the legal demands made upon them; while it punishes those who have obeyed the laws and who have paid their just debts. For instance, in parishes where the landlords and tenants have paid the clergyman, where the parties have paid the composition rent, this Bill authorises and directs the Lords of the Treasury to sue that clergyman. Then, in parishes where no payment was made, the parties are to be exempted from any demand. Now that is not the usual course of legislation; and it must be injurious to any
1252
country, but particularly to a country situated as Ireland is; it is an encouragement to people to disobey the laws. It is most unjust to the clergy, because if, for instance, the income of a clergyman was 500 l. and he received an advance of the loan to that amount, he must pay the whole, although he succeeded in obtaining only 250 l. That does not seem to me to be just. I leave it to his Majesty's Ministers to say, whether they would persist in carrying this Bill into effect, in a state which would render it not only unjust, but, most probably, inoperative.
Lord Hathertonsaid, the Act of last year was expressly designed for the relief of lay impropriators as well as the clergy, and he thought it unjust to cast any obloquy upon them for availing themselves of the relief afforded by that Act. It was equally unjust to compel the parties who had done so to repay those instalments which, by law, they were prevented from recovering.
The Marquess of Downshireagreed in what had fallen from the right rev. Prelate and the noble Lord who had spoken last. He thought it highly desirable that this matter should be set at rest, and that it would be very unjust to deal in the manner proposed towards the lay impropriators who had very fairly and properly availed themselves of the Million Act, because from what had passed in Parliament at the time of the passing of that Act there certainly was a declaration made, that tithes should be altogether done away with, and that induced many persons, especially in the south of Ireland, not to pay tithes at all. He thought it necessary that measures should be taken to prevent any recurrence to vexatious proceedings. As one of the persons who had derived benefit from the Million Act he felt bound to say, that he was very thankful for the assistance he received from it.
Viscount Melbournesaid, that the Act was passed for the relief of the clergy generally, and, therefore, it was not necessary that they should have received any particular tithes to render them liable under this Act; but if they had received any part of the loan at all, and had received property to such an extent as to enable them to repay the loan, it did not seem to him unfair to call upon them for repayment.