Lords Sitting of 17 July 1840

MINUTES.
Bills. Read a first time:—County Constabulary; Turnpike Trusts; Juvenile Offenders.—Read a second time:—Sale of Beer.—Read a third time:—Blenheim Palace Repairs.
Petitions presented. By Lord Brougham, from the Provincial Newspaper Society, for Amendment of the Law of Libel.—By Viscount Melbourne, from Royston, Brighton, and other places, against the Sale of Beer Bill.—By the Earl of Winchilsea, from the Western Division of the county of Kent, and by the Duke of Richmond, from Market-gardeners of Surrey and Kent, for an Increase of Duty on Fresh Foreign Fruit,—By Lord Brougham,

775
from places in Cheshire, against the Weaver Churches Bill; and from Edward England, against the Chimneysweepers' Bill.

SPANISH INDEMNITY BONDS.
The Earl of Aberdeen, in presenting to the House a petition from the holders of Spanish Indemnity bonds, and asking the attention of the noble Viscount for a few moments to the statement of the petitioners, reminded the House that he had presented a similar petition just two years ago from the same parties, and couched in the same terms. On that occasion, the noble Viscount not only admitted the justice and strength, and truth of the representations made by the petitioners, but he had gone further, and declared that the claim of the petitioners was of such a nature, that it ought to be liquidated preferably to any other claims on the Spanish Government, and that her Majesty's Government would lose no time in urging the settlement of the demand. Nothing had, however, since been done for the relief of those parties; and therefore they had again come forward with a petition, in the hope of obtaining redress. A convention was entered into in 1823, by the ambassador from this country to the Court of Madrid, for the purpose of obtaining redress on account of certain outrages, and the capture of certain property by the Spanish Government previous to that year. A mixed commission was in consequence appointed to examine the matter; but nothing was done up to the year 1828, when the parties complaining, by his advice, agreed to a compromise. They were willing to receive 900.000 l., instead of upwards of 2,000,000 l., the amount of claims registered under this commission. In consequence 600,000 l. was paid in money, and bonds were given for the remaining 300,000 l, which bonds were secured by treaty entered into by the Spanish Government for that purpose, and sanctioned by, and textually embodied in an Act of Parliament, thus giving a security for these bonds, which no other bonds could possess. In 1836, the interest on these bonds ceased to be paid, and those by whom they were held suffered much inconvenience in consequence. The sum was so small, and the sanction for its payment so solemn, that it was impossible to suppose, that if the Government had exerted itself in pressing these claims properly, they would not have succeeded in effecting that object. Last winter an at-
776
tempt was made on the part of the Government to effect an arrangement for the payment of this arrear, and acceptances were granted on the part of the Spanish agent for that purpose; but when the bills arrived at maturity, they were protested. Six dividends were now owing. The claims of the Spanish Legion bad been pressed with an extraordinary degree of activity and perseverance in that House, and he saw by a letter from Sir De Lacy Evans, that they were nearly settled, and that a sum of 50,000 l. had been actually paid. He did not deny the claims of the Legion, or the right which they had to call upon Government to assist them in obtaining justice; but their claims, assuredly, were not greater than those of the petitioners. They had taken these bonds under the sanction of a solemn treaty, which the Government was as much bound by as by any treaty that ever was made. He thought that there was something like a breach of engagement on the part of the noble Viscount (who had said that these claims ought to be liquidated preferably to all other claims) in not pressing the subject more strenuously on the Spanish Government. One circumstance ought not to be omitted in noticing this case. It was notorious that throughout all Europe Spanish bonds, and other Spanish securities, were at one time worth nothing; yet, owing to the sanction of the British Government, these indemnity bonds were received, when other Spanish securities were good for nothing, as valuable. He was much interested in this subject, because he was the person who had induced the parties to enter into a compromise in lieu of their original demand, and they naturally looked to him, by whose advice they took that step, to direct them with reference to the proceedings which they should adopt. He had thought it right to bring it forward again, and he trusted that it would be speedily settled. He wished that the noble Viscount would in this instance, exhibit a little of that energy which he had shown in endeavouring to effect a settlement of the claims of the Spanish Legion.
Viscount Melbourneobserved that the facts, as stated by his noble Friend, were perfectly indisputable; and he must fairly admit, that the claims of the petitioners were entitled to a priority of consideration with the Spanish Government. But when he made that admission, he must at the

777
same time observe that there were other circumstances than those of neglect or want of energy on the part of her Majesty's Government, which afforded in his estimation a sufficiently reasonable ground for the cessation of these payments. The claims of the petitioners had been strongly urged on the Spanish minister in this country, and also on the Spanish Government at Madrid, in the spring of this year, to which it was replied that Spain was really so pressed by the exigencies of the civil war, and that it was of such paramount necessity—of such supreme, absolute, and primary importance to put an end to that civil war, that for the present it was quite impossible to discharge any of the pecuniary claims which foreign nations might have upon her. It was further urged, that it would be more for the advantage of the creditors of Spain themselves that all the resources of the country should be applied to the great object of subduing the internal enemy, and of puting an end to the civil strife by which all the energies of the country had hitherto been paralyzed. It was impossible, he thought, not to feel the force of that argument. He must say, that he did not think his noble Friend had exhibited either now or on former occasions a disposition to make sufficient allowance for a country and a Government placed in such a situation as that of Spain. It was easy for his noble Friend to say that the sum claimed was small, and that Spain was a large country; but here in England we knew little or nothing of the difficulty that existed in procuring even the smallest sums in a country exhausted by civil war. Spain had shown great energy and a strong disposition to meet its engagements, and was only prevented doing so by that necessity to which all persons and all nations were compelled to yield. His noble Friend said he was quite sure the justice of these claims would be admitted, and that they ought to be satisfied, and that the Government was not justified in paying more attention to the claims of the Legion, though the claims of the Legion had something in them of a temporary nature, which perhaps these claims had not. He did not say that this was a just argument, though he could conceive some reason why that should be the case, but at the same time it was impossible, amidst the difficult affairs of a distracted and convulsed nation, to preserve that exact
778
regularity of transaction which might be maintained in time of peace. There was now reason to hope that the civil war had terminated; but it was impossible that all the effects of it should cease at once, and that the resources of the country should become available to other purposes without some further delay. However, a better state of things and a more regular course of procedure might now be expected, and it would be amongst the first duties of her Majesty's Government to make such representations upon this subject as should appear to be necessary; and he had no doubt that the Spanish Government would also see the necessity of settling claims which were so manifestly just, and which they were bound by solemn treaty to liquidate. He felt perfectly satisfied that the claims of these petitioners would now be attended to with as little delay as the affairs of the country would permit.
The Earl of Aberdeensaid, that the treaty which had been entered into rendered it a British obligation to see that the demands of these bondholders were satisfied. These bondholders were not persons to enter into speculations in foreign funds; but they received those securities under the guarantee of a British treaty, and the obligation was fully admitted by the Spanish Government. It was no answer to tell those persons that one of the contracting parties was poor.
Petition laid on the table.

LAW OF EVIDENCE (SCOTLAND.)
The Lord Chancellor, having moved the second reading of the Law of Evidence (Scotland) Bill, stated that the object of the bill was to do away with the present rule in the Scottish courts of excluding all persons from being examined as witnesses in cases, where the parties concerned came within certain degrees of consanguinity. Such a rule must operate to the frustration of justice in many instances, where the transactions under inquiry had taken place in the bosom of a family, and within the cognizance of near relatives only. He could not conceive that any opposition would be offered to so rational a measure. What would their Lordships think, if any noble Lord were to propose to alter the law of England, so as to exclude persons from giving evidence in cases in which their relatives were concerned? Such a proposition would be

779
considered absurd. This measure came before their Lordships, sanctioned by many eminent persons, and he thought their Lordships would have no difficulty in agreeing to the second reading of the bill.
The Earl of Haddingtonobserved, that the case supposed by the noble and learned Lord, of a proposition to alter the law of England, so as to make it the same as that of Scotland at present with regard to the subject of this bill, might appear absurd to the noble and learned Lord; but he thought it was a case which could scarcely apply to the question before the House, inasmuch as the law of England had been long established, had worked well, and it would be very difficult to convince the country that any advantage was to be gained by the change. It would be equally difficult to prove to the people of Scotland, that they would be benefitted by an alteration of the law in this respect. The administration of justice in that country had proceeded satisfactorily; and it might not be hard to show that, in some cases, the ends of justice might be thwarted, unless the principle of exclusion, proposed to be done away with by this bill, were allowed to operate. But, without going into that debateable point, it would be sufficient for him to state to their Lordships, that the whole Faculty of Advocates, and he believed the majority of the Scotch judges, were against the change. Therefore let their Lordships pause before they agreed to the second reading of this bill: let the whole subject be thoroughly investigated, and let the bill be postponed for another session. He called on their Lordships to give due weight to the opinions held by the whole bar of Scotland on this subject, especially as several of the judges had given their opinions against part of the change which was now proposed. He begged, therefore, to move that the bill be read a second time that day six months.
Lord Broughamsupported the bill. The report which had been made by the committee of the Faculty of Advocates recommended the chief alterations that would be made by this bill, and only objected to some minor points. The change respecting examination in initialibus was not objected to; and the only objection made to the clause as to keeping witnesses out of court, was that the law was already similar to what the bill proposed. With respect to the opposition which the legal profession gave the bill, he would remind
780
their Lordships, that some of the most beneficial changes lately made in the law of England had been strongly objected to by the profession. He had no hesitation in saying, that the late changes in the law of real property were as beneficial as any that had been made since the time of Edward 1st, yet no measures could have received less support from the profession than those which effected those changes.
Lord Denmansaid, that to expunge the first clause would involve a denial of the truth, and a distinct refusal of evidence. Was this a proper state of legislation in a civilized country? Were they to take the recommendation of the Faculty of Advocates, contrary to the distinct advice of a committee appointed by that very body of advocates? Were they about to place on the shoulders of a judge the unpleasant responsibility of deciding whether, after five or six witnesses were examined, there was a penuria of evidence, and whether a seventh witness was to be brought forward, labouring under an admitted incompetency? If the existing practice were to be continued, there might be no possibility of adducing proof of a man's innocence, though perfectly well known to one or two of his relations, because their evidence was inadmissible. He would give his vote cordially in favour of the bill.
The Lord Chancellorreplied, and instanced a recent case, where four boys had been put on their trial for theft, and the case failed in consequence of the uncle of one of them being the only witness against them. Was it not requisite that a remedy should be provided for so monstrous an anomaly?
Bill read a second time.